& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

New US foreign policy doctrine: Old wine in new bottle?

Tahmina Rahman
"T LIST because we have the best
I hammer does not mean every
y problem is a nail" - Barack Obama, Commencement speech at West Point, 2014.z
A few days ago, while addressing a fresh batch of graduates at West Point, President Obama made it clear that he sees America as the global leader that does not rely on brute force to solve every problem. He reiterated the popular American belief 'America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else will.'
This doctrinal shift in foreign policy that supports diplomacy based on soft power and financial assistance to fight international terrorism might have been aimed at reassuring those who were afraid of what seemed like an increasing isolationist tendency in the US foreign policy. It could also comfort those who opposed America's unremitting interventions around the world. lust two days before addressing the graduates at West Point, Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan and reassured the American soldiers serving there that the mission in Afghanistan will come to a "responsible end." Is this war fatigue talking through President Obama? Although some observers might find an uncanny similarity between temporary US retrenchment into its own cocoon right after the failures in Korean and Vietnam wars with what the president is envisaging now, American historian Robert Kagan thinks it's 'world weariness' that America is suffering from these days. President Obama's commitment to a more restrained and responsible engagement with the international community
might as well be interpreted by some as growing lethargy rather than a renewed vow to its global leadership role.
Now what could have caused this epiphany that made Obama realise the diminishing utility of military power in steering his foreign policy? A few reasons promptly come to mind - overstretched and resource consuming operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a struggling economy, and decreasing international legitimacy for the way America engages with the world, and so on. Pundits are arguing over whether Obama has publicly announced a deviation in American foreign policy from its over-indulgence with military power. Skeptics like Senator Graham Lindsay said: "President Obama is not ending wars, he's losing them."
Basically, the president talked about the right to use force unilaterally when American interests are stake, and go for alliances and partnerships when threats are not directly posed against America. Demarcating areas and interests this way sends a subtle and negative signal to those who have been left out and damages the credibility of the global leader.
But is such a change in American foreign policy rhetoric a real aberration from tradition or sophisticated trickery with words? The whole speech revolved around the importance of counterterrorism. Glorification of his administration's success in counterterrorism so far and his future plans on this issue occupied the major portion of the president's speech. He did not give any clear guideline on how he was planning on keeping the USA in the global leadership position. Except for that $ 5 billion partnership fund for fighting terrorism, he did not present
any concrete proposals to translate his ideas into actions. It is very surprising how little President Obama had to say about trade and investment and the importance of Asia in America's economic recovery. He also did not utter a word on how to overcome the various legal, technical and political problems that hinder 'collective action' in international relations.
He did talk about climate change. And he expressed discontent over America's aversion toward international treaty commitments like the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea. But the fleeting references to those issues hardly prove a change in foreign policy.
In a sense the speech was a response to the growing criticism of America's inaction or inadequate action in the face of problems like Russian activities in Eastern Europe and Chinese theatrical show of power in the South China Sea. This was no big departure from the 'light footprints' approach that Obama took up in his first term. BBC's North American editor Mark MardeH opines that the president has not brought forth a 'shinning new dawn of peace and democracy.' The speech sounded like a mere restatement of previous foreign policy posture may be with a renewed vigour.
Borrowing from Richard Haas (President of Council on Foreign Relations), what America needs now is tying foreign policy with the domestic one so that "people understand that what happens here in the United States affects our ability to act in the world, and what happens in the world will in many ways affect the quality of life here." Apparently, President Obama likes to keep those realms separate and
thus risk poor policy choices.
The real question is whether this rhetoric of less aggressive foreign policy matches the reality on ground. How popular will his newly envisioned foreign policy be with the hawks that are critical of Obama's soft approach in Syria and Ukraine? Will the Congress approve the $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fund? How welcome will be his idea to support Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq in hosting refuges and controlling terrorists? Will the changes please people like Senator Bob Corker, who is still hesitant about the schedule for troops withdrawal from Afghanistan? For all the president's confident claims about cornering Putin with less aggressive means in association with American allies, France is still on for warship sale to Russia and the sanctions do not seem to keep Putin awake at night. Drone strikes are still a reality and Guantanamo Bay is in operation. So the president has got a lot of explaining to do before convincing the skeptics that his 'new and improved' version of foreign policy is actually something new and does pay off.
In whichever way his proposed changes are received in America and around the world, he will not be worried about "critics who think military intervention is only way for America to avoid looking weak." With only two years remaining in power, it would be interesting to see how Obama convinces the critics about the utility of this supposed 'doctrinal shift' and how well he implements those promises he made at the West Point.
The writer is an Assistant Professor at the department of International Relations, University of Dhaka.