On the tricky question of NATO expansion, which the Pickle has followed closely (see here), Obama only referred to it obliquely, embedded in a discussion about state sovereignty:
State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy. That's why we must apply this principle to all nations -- and that includes nations like Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For any country to become a member of an organization like NATO, for example, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; they must be able to contribute to the Alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO should be seeking collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.
The take-away from the above quote, which may go largely un-noticed in Washington but will be duly noted in Moscow, is that Obama understands that Ukraine has no chance of joining NATO anytime soon. Although it is never mentioned in the Western press (because it never occurs to us to consider what the Ukrainian people think about NATO), polls consistently show that Ukrainian public opinion is firmly in the “let’s NOT join NATO” camp. Pro-Western government elites are the ones spearheading the drive to join. By saying that “a majority of [a country’s] people must choose to” join NATO, Obama is stealthily throwing NATO expansion in Ukraine under the bus, at least for the time being. But he is leaving NATO expansion open as a possibility for the future. This is absolutely the right policy.
As I’ve said before, the proper orientation of Ukraine is neither exclusively towards the West, fully integrated into NATO, nor exclusively towards the East, as part of a Russian “sphere of influence.” The Ukrainian people will be best served by a government that leverages Ukraine’s strategic geographical and historical position at the crossroads of what we traditionally think of as “East” and “West.” After all, the name Ukraine translates as “borderland”—a name that reflects a reality that the Ukrainian government should embrace.
9 comments:
Don't forget Step 5: Quickly move to establish a system of criminal justice and presidential power akin to the Soviet Union's. Nothing earns the respect of Putin and his ex-KGB ilk quicker than show trials, indefinite detention, and Kafka-eque language like "post aquittal detention." Truly, Peter, we have A Great and Wonderful Leader!
Seriously, the Obama lovefest needs to stop at some point. His foreign policy is great because he gives great speeches? Sooner or later all the Russians fawning over whatever his rhetorical skills may be will ask the same questions many of us in the States are asking - is there any meat on these bones? It's easy to talk about mutual understanding and have someone research good Pushkin quotations. It's hard to actually come up with policy that works. What was the ACTUAL result of the Moscow summits? What agreements were signed? To me it looks like a speech and some photo ops manufactured to conceal the fact that little to no actual progress was made.
Nate,
You are right that not much was accomplished at the summit. But this was likely by design. Obama, as the new Kennedy (if you will), had Kennedy's disastrous first summit with Khruschev hanging over his head. So he is happy to come away form this summit having achieved little but having successfully avoided losing his shirt.
I would say, however, that the small movement away from NATO membership for Ukraine (and also Georgian--they fail the "must undertake reforms" and "must contribute to the Alliance's mission" tests) is something of substance, although nothing big. The bigger issues, which were not at all resolved, are Russian support for Iran and American missile defense in Poland. But the bottom line is that America and Russia are continuing down the thawing-of-relations track. The road gets bumpier from here, but they are at least on the right road.
The larger issue with Obama's foreign policy that makes me so happy (and should not be sneezed at) is that he really does understand that America can no longer push the rest of the world around. He is trying to implement the humble and respectful foreign policy we have all been waiting for. It is not weak, but it is not mindlessly belligerent. He is on the right track in terms of rhetoric, attitude, and intention. We see this on Iran, Israel, the Middle East generally, Russia, and China. And he has also taken SOME concrete positive steps forward--however small--in many of these areas.
This does not mean he won't bail out and stop taking positive steps forward. You are right--good speeches do not an effective foreign policy make. But I am not so enamored with Obama that I will fail to notice when he's gotten off track. And my hunch is that he will get off track at some point, perhaps soon.
I'm very much with you that Obama is absolutely wrong on presidential powers/Guantanamo/rendition/indefinite detention. But comparing him to KGB guys or Stalin (Great and Wonderful Leader) is, while I know you don't mean it all that seriously, a pretty crazy comparison.
The Obama lovefest will likely end on the Pickle (it is already ending on the domestic policy front). But for now Obama is doing the right things and should be given credit for it. Let's wait and see what happens next.
To the extent that foreign policy is about messaging and tone, I think we can all agree that Obama has been successful.
But how long do you think foreign leaders and nations will react favorably? Yesterday, while Obama was pushing his "humble and respectful" foreign policy, he again - and against the specific requests of the Pakistani government - authorized the violation of that nation's sovereignty - a violation, by the way, that led to a large amount of civilian deaths (if the news reports are to be believed). How humble and respectful is this man, really? Drone attacks into Pakistan have increased, not decreased, since Obama took office.
Your definition of "humble and respectful" seems to apply mainly to other great powers - if Obama really is dismissing out of hand Georgia and Ukraine's NATO prospects, how is that "respectful" of their rights as nations? It's only respectful of Russia's absurd, anachronistic, tyrannical and despotic assertion that by some unseen, magic force it has the right to determine matters relating to Georgia and Ukraine's sovereignty.
My point about the KGB is not that Obama is morally equivalent to Stalin, of course. But he has now asserted the same authority that other leaders we consider reprehensible asserted: the right to detain, indefinitely, and without regard to any judicial process, any individual (including U.S. citizens) that HE PERSONALLY deems to be "a threat to national security." Will he use this to ship millions to gulags? Probably not. But don't kid yourself, the "legal" framework is not appreciably different.
Thank The Founders, there are other bodies that may restrict his authority in this regard - that doesn't change the fact that he has asserted it.
Dialogue before action. I think Obama's dialogue has been such a refreshing change from the last administration that we get a little giddy. We may have to wait a bit longer for the results though. Building friendships and alliances takes longer than making enemies. Tough talk and dropping bombs was the policy of the last administration. This courteous and respectful approach from Obama is dramatically different. I hope the results are equally dramatically different. I for one am willing to be patient. And I think it's a good sign that we like what we're hearing even if the landscape does remain unchanged for now.
I agree with the premise, "dialogue before action." And I also agree that our last president tended towards "tough talk and dropping bombs."
Is soft talk and dropping bombs better? So often supporters of Obama focus on their own image of what Obama is, rather than what he is actually doing. Consider:
According to Wikipedia, from June 18, 2004, the date of the first drone attack in Pakistan, to the end of Bush's second term, the president authorized 24 drone attacks in Pakistan, killing 215. I haven't found a breakdown of those deaths in terms of legitimate vs. civilian casualties, but at least some were innocent civilians.
From the beginning of Obama's term, there have been 24 attacks, killing 378. In other words, Obama has increased, roguhly by a factor of eight, the frequency of attacks, at the same time showing a greater tolerance for casualties (just this year there have been three attacks that killed more than 50 individuals).
Now, these attacks may be good policy (and many in the CIA and DOD insist they are), but one thing they certainly are not is the actions of a "dialogue before action" president. In Pakistan at least, Obama makes Bush look like a windsurfing, U.N.-loving man of deliberation.
All I ask of Obama supporters is to recognize the following: if a policy was bad, immoral, evil, etc. under George W. Bush, it is still bad, immoral, evil, etc. under Barack Obama.
Where is the outrage over the surge in Afghanistan, the delay over withdrawal in Iraq? Over cover ups for torturers, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice? Over "preventative detention" and "post-acquittal detention?" Had George W. Bush announced any of these, the howls from current Obama supporters would have been deafening. So why is the reply so meek now?
Early in his term, George Bush went to Russia, spent some quality time with Putin, talked about the man's soul, and produced no results . . . and was roundly mocked by the left. But Obama goes to Russia, spouts some Pushkin, talks about the greatness of Russia's soul, accomplishes nothing, and it's an unmitigated success?
Sorry, not buying it. To take a line from Wendy's: Where's the beef?
For the record, I have been against escalation in Afghanistan, as well as against Obama's detention policies. There are Pickle posts to attest to this. But my disapproval of those policies does not mean we should fail to give Obama credit for his good policies. Obama should be criticized for things he does wrong and praised for things he does right. On balance, especially after the last 8 years, he is doing lots of things right and some things wrong.
But to return to Ukraine and Georgia for a second, let's be clear. No country has a "right" to join NATO. It is a super-national organization that has strict requirements when it comes to membership. Obama is not dismissing any rights, or even dismissing their chances of joining. He is simply recognizing the obvious (to everyone but us) reality that Ukraine and Georgia should not be in NATO. This is not some plot by Russia to determine the fate of these two countries. Yes, Russia is vying for influence in these two countries--just as America is vying for influence! Neither county's policy is absurd, tyrannical, or magical. It is how the world works. Would Ukraine be better off if America and Russia backed off. Yes! That is why we should stop pushing them to join NATO. Then we would have the moral high ground if Russia continues to meddle with their internal politics. And to repeat: the Ukrainian people do not want to join NATO! Nor do they want to be controlled by Russia!
It is tyrannical and absurd for Russia to assert that it has some kind of veto power over Ukrainian ascension to NATO. And actually every nation DOES have the right to join NATO provided it meets the eligibility criteria (including Russia, BTW). I agree it's their choice, and no one should be forced to join . . . but Russia should not get to say who's eligible and who isn't. And Obama shouldn't go out of his way to pander to the Russian psychosis on this issue. Ukraine may not want to join NATO - but do a poll on how many Ukrainians want Moscow running their foreign policy, I bet you'll see an even starker reaction.
Thanks Nate for the info on Pakistani Drone usage and killings data pre and post administration change. It tends to get into the "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" category of things. I would like to see a more creative approach than drone-bombing. I'm watching the current push in Afghanistan. Watching and hoping for some type of improvement in the quality of life there and maybe some lessons to take into our engagement in Pakistan.
Nate,
When did Russia ever say it has veto power over who joins NATO? And even if they did SAY they had veto power (an absurd notion), what makes you think that they actually would have any real influence over such a decision? They were powerless to stop the Baltic states from joining NATO. If Ukraine qualified for NATO, they would be equally powerless today to stop Ukraine from joining. Their only power to stop Ukraine joining is to threaten poorer relations with the U.S., which is a far cry from veto power. They are simply playing the game of international politics; and as far as I can tell, playing by the (unwritten) rules, fair and square. This is no big deal. Your outrage ("tyrannical," "absurd") seems puzzling to me.
Also, I think you are misrepresenting the idea of other country's "right" to join NATO. Yes, anyone in theory can join NATO, just as anyone in theory can obtain a mortgage--that is, if they qualify. But denying someone entry into NATO, like denying someone a mortgage, is not some gross injustice. It is a contract that both parties must deem beneficial. It is not an inherent "right" like the right to free speech that, under most every circumstance of denial, would be unjust.
Post a Comment