Like any new
president, Barack Obama has stumbled as he grappled with the learning curve
associated with the world's most demanding job.
Given the range of issues with which he was confronted from his first
day in office, it has only been fair that he should be not be judged too
quickly and that his ideas and his team had time to take root and grow. In some areas, he has achieved notable
success, such as his efforts to improve America's image in the world and his
effort to move quickly to respond to the economic crisis. In others, such as the efforts to restart the
auto industry or make meaningful changes in the regulation of the financial
sector, the jury is out. As for real
health care reform and meaningful steps to combat climate change, the key
legislation is still being shaped, the key votes months away.
But as this week
comes to an end, I think it is fair to say that Obama's foreign policy has
suffered its first major failure, one that may haunt it for a long time to
come. As those of you who have been
reading this blog for the past few days know, I've been grappling with the
issue of the administration's response...or lack thereof...to Iran's stolen
election and the opposition's efforts to contest the results in the
streets. Because I see the merits in stopping and
evaluating a situation before responding. And I understand the reasons to maintain an open dialogue with the
regime in Tehran.
But as each day of
the week has gone by, America's silence seems less defensible. Do we really intend to engage the current regime as if nothing had happened? Do we
really believe it is useful to send a message that America doesn't care any
longer, won't act, won't speak out, won't penalize or criticize or seek to
pressure those who compromise or crush democracy?
The administration
seems to be saying that we can't afford ill will from anyone, even countries
whose regimes denounce us and our allies. They seem to be worried that by supporting the opposition they will be
tainted by association with us rather than empowered by it. And they seem to be saying that they can't
think of any approaches better than their silence to advance our interests.
Why? Because multilateral diplomacy is so
difficult? Britain, France, and Germany
have all made stronger statements, we could have made one together? Why?
Because the Chinas of this world would never go along with our
statements because it puts them in a difficult light? The statement could have come from western
powers alone. We don't need unanimity in
matters like this. We need a forceful
message that countries that violate the basic rights of their citizens should
expect to pay a price for such behavior in the international community. Those who rise up in those countries should
also know that the international community or a substantial portion of it will
work tirelessly to support them to make the risks they are taking worthwhile.
We can seek
engagement without checking our values at the door. Indeed, to do otherwise is to make
engagement pointless. Why engage if it
is not to advance our interests? How naïve
it is to think that won't involve challenging, offending, even battling those
with whom we are engaged. That doesn't
mean our battles must be wars or produce the needless rifts of the Bush
years.
But we must ask, in
our silence did we send a message to Ayatollah Khamenei that might make he and
his cronies feel more comfortable in using violence to suppress the pro-Democracy
protestors? In our weak response to Kim
Jong Il do we send a message that he may proceed with his nuclear and missile
provocations effectively unchecked? In
our desire to undo the damage of the Bush years by reaching out to former
enemies, do we strengthen those who we should seek to weaken, tolerate the
intolerable, fail to take action where action is called for?
I'm afraid the
answer is yes. We are back on our heels. This
does not make the world safer or conflict any less likely. Quite the contrary. Bush debased American leadership with his
actions. Obama should remember that it
is just as possible to do so through inaction.
There are many things this administration could have and should have said that would not undercut that which is sound in their foreign policy. They could have said… ideally in chorus with our allies… that the international community was disturbed by apparent irregularities, that any recount or investigation should be made by objective observers, that the suppression of peaceful protests would be viewed with great concern, that Iran would jeopardize its talks with the international community if it undertook violence or condoned voter fraud, that nuclear weapons agreements depend on trust and that countries that seek such trust must act accordingly, that while we seek to maintain engagement, there are limits to what we will tolerate and that we reserve all our options to advance our interests. They could have convened a meeting among like-minded countries to discuss options, sent an envoy, formally postponed further discussions of the nuclear issue until this situation was clarified. They could have raised a doubt in the minds of the leaders in Tehran about how we would react in the face of a crackdown, that there might be consequences.
If all this would
make the Chinese uncomfortable because they might fear they could be accused of
similar indifference to the rights of their citizens, well, that's too
bad. It's a message they too need to
hear. Capitulation to them on every
issue simply because they are big (and yes, I am talking to you, Google
management) creates terrible precedents and invites further bad acts.
Is the vision a
world in which engagement becomes the ultimate objective of all foreign
relations? Just as critics once rightly
reminded the Bush administration that terror was not an enemy it was a tactic,
so is it worth remembering that engagement is also just a tactic and not a goal
in and of itself? While we should
sacrifice to preserve our core values and interests, we should not sacrifice
those values and interests to preserve our tactics.
JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE