American exceptionalism: A critique of Obama\\\'s foreign policy

President Obama in a speech at the commencement ceremony of cadets at the Military Academy, New York summed up his foreign policy on May 28. Obama said, "America must always lead, if we don't, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. But U.S military action cannot be the only - or even the primary component of our leadership in every instance." Referring to the drawdown of troops from Afghanistan Obama said, "Our reduced presence there allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa." President told the graduating cadets that they would unlikely to be deployed at the battlefields in the near future. He stressed on multilateralism to confront the threats in the troubled spots and said, "The partnership I have described does not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that's what we do. Our actions must meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off at the battlefield." President declared, "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law: it's our willingness to affirm them through our actions."
Obama's speech hasn't surprised anybody -he has elucidated the policy his administration has been in pursuit since 2009. During the campaign Obama pledged to wind up the unjust war in Iraq and unending skirmishes in Afghanistan. His Republican challenger John McCain resolved to continue the wars, if necessary, for hundred years. The Americans saw the rationale of closing the wars and voted for Obama. On the very first year of the presidency Obama took steps to withdraw troops from Iraq and during the following three years the Iraqis took charge of their country. The military returned home with a casualty of over 4,000 killed and 25,000 severely injured. Unfortunately stability has not returned to Iraq; intolerance and personal vendetta made space for the extremists and Mesopotamia continues to bleed even today. The United States did not win and the Iraqis lost close to a million lives in the war that was launched defying international law. This is the message Obama conveyed when he said the ability to flout international norms and the rule of law does not make America exceptional.
The situation in Afghanistan has been much more convoluted. Ethnic incompatibility, religious bigotry and foreign interference made governance difficult. The people of Afghanistan have never tested democracy and possibly do not subscribe to pluralism. There has not been a national army for a long time. Armed militia having allegiance to local war lords were fighting against each other but not for any national cause. The American efforts to transform the country under unitary government were not matched by determination of the political forces or individuals in the country. As a consequence, even after thirteen years of American intervention no political system of governance per se has emerged to ensure stability. Obama realised the forebodings of the billion-dollar war efforts and decided to phase out. Most of the combat troops would return home by the end of the year leaving behind a small contingent to support the Afghan national army of 340,000 combat troops. The newly elected Afghan president will have the challenge to consolidate the gains achieved so far.
By terminating the two costly wars President Obama has redeemed his pledge to the nation. In the meantime over 2,000 US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and about 15,000 returned home with serious injuries. The war cost the US government US$ 448 billion since 2001.
Russian annexation of Crimea and mobilisation troops along Ukraine's eastern border in March exited the hawkish in the US Congress. They mounted pressure to impose sanctions against the Russian government and provide military assistance to Ukraine army. Secretary of State John Kerry travelled from one European capital to another to secure support in favour of sanction against Russia but with little success. The French and the British governments did not like to put their arms deals with Russia, worth billions of Euro, at risk while the German government did not want to throw its citizens in severe cold by suspending gas supply from Russia.
Though multilateralism failed, the European countries voiced support to territorial integrity of Ukraine. The sanction did not deter the Russian government to instigate the secessionists in Ukraine. Now the entire eastern region of Ukraine has turned restive and the writ of Kiev government does not extend to the troubled region. Petro Poroshenko, newly-elected Ukraine President, received pledge of US$ 5.0 million in non-lethal equipment from Obama but the way European governments courted President Putin in Paris on D-Day celebration, dismissed any possibility of united action against Moscow. On the contrary, President Poroshenko has been encouraged by the European leaders to accommodate Russian demands. American unilateral sanction strained its relation with Moscow with no tangible succour to Kiev.
The insurgency in Syria and the most brutal reprisal by Assad regime brought worldwide condemnation. The US government lent political support to fragmented opposition groups. It also provided humanitarian assistance to over a million Syrian refugees camped in neighbouring countries. Notwithstanding repeated calls to provide ammunitions to rebel fighters the Obama administration opted to wait and see. Meanwhile, about 150,000 Syrians have died. The UN-sponsored mediation failed and the strained Washington-Moscow bilateral relation has positioned Russia quite firmly behind Syrian dictator. The rumour that jihadist infiltrated the rebel forces has further deterred US administration to support the opposition forces. The maudlin role of the Arab league, uncharismatic stewardship at the UN and lack of interests by the European countries to vigorously search for a political solution have made the people of Syria hostage to uncertainty. They are losing hope and tired of burying the dead. Should the situation persist Syria might transform into a breeding ground for the extremists - a potential threat to peace in the region and by extension to world peace.
Obama's assertion that US must lead has not been borne out by his action in the Middle East. During his first term no initiative was taken to resolve Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He voiced opposition against the denial of homeland for the Palestinians and disapproved settlements in the occupied territory. But he failed to take action to promote peace. He appeared to have surrendered to the Israeli lobby. In his second term, John Kerry tried to revive the peace process and even arbitrarily set a time frame of six months to reach an agreement.  Since the expansion of settlement continued unabated, the Palestinians lost incentive for the peace deal. The recent decision of Israeli government to build another 3,300 settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem reinforces the notion that Israel wants peace in its own terms and the US government has no guts to challenge illegal action of Israel.
An elected government in Egypt was dismissed by the military after it completed one year in office. President Morsi's government did not perform, lacked patience and ability to consolidate the coalition it had formed during the uprising against Hosni Mubarak. Nonetheless, it was an elected government for the first time since the Pyramids were built. John Kerry's characterisation of military takeover as "aiming at restoring democracy" tantamount to denial of the sacrifices of the martyrs who overthrew the Hosni Mubarak dictatorship in 2011. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi has now got elected through an electoral exercise that marked voters' turnout as low as 15 per cent. It is very likely that the US government would be dealing with the newly-formed government. Many youths who rebelled against Hosni Mubarak had also protested against Morsi, are now passing days and months in prison. The US government can at least urge the authorities in Cairo to be humane and set free thousands of youth imprisoned only for the love of democracy in their country. This will make the rhetoric of promotion of human rights a little more meaningful.
Following decades of sanctions, boycotts and war of words the process of rapprochement began between Tehran and Washington in September 2013. President Rouhani blinked first - he signalled that Iran would be prepared to discuss nuclear issues though he reiterated it was designed for peaceful purpose. Obama reciprocated and ministerial-level talks began amongst US, EU and Iranian governments. Notwithstanding severe opposition and vilification from Israel an interim agreement was signed in November. Both sides became conciliatory and according to latest report the next meeting is scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 10-11. There have been relaxation on travels and visitors from the US were impressed by the work produced by Iranian engineers compared to other countries in the region. Despite the drop in foreign investment UNCTAD estimated that direct foreign investment in Iran has increased to US$ 5.0 billion in 2012, funded primarily by Chinese, Russian and Turkish companies. In the long run and once sanctions are lifted, there would be enormous potential of trade and business between Iran and the United States. Business communities in both ends are eagerly waiting for the opportunity. Obama acknowledged "there remained a very real chance of agreement - one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force." The choice of dialogue over confrontation makes the United States exceptional.
The writer is a former official of the
United Nations.
 [email protected]