There are two years to go until the end of the second presidency of the U.S. President. Specialists compare his current activity with that of the first period of presidency. It reveals interesting facts. The real situation is not so simple as it may seem. The foreign policy of the world`s strongest nation has contradictions and uncertainties. Washington`s stance on some geopolitical issues is seriously criticized. Even though, many western analysts largely touch upon America`s leadership problem but prefer to forget about the major issues complicating the global geopolitical landscape. Where is America heading to?
After two elections: realities caused by new problems
The dynamics of America`s foreign policy is of great significance to the global geopolitics. Much depends on the activity of the world`s strongest nation. For this reason, specialists pay big attention to the specific features of the domestic and foreign policy of Barack Obama during his second presidency.
There is no need to recall some important aspects of Obama`s foreign policy in the period of his second presidency. Well-known terrorist acts hit the USA`s authority in the world. In particular, Muslims did not trust Washington. In the light of these developments, the USA began to encounter problems in its economy. The citizens were mostly concerned about solving domestic problems. In such a situation, America needed a president with a completely different program (see: Kılıç Buğra Kanat. Obama’nın İkinci Döneminde Amerikan Dış Politikası / ”Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı” (SETA), May 2014, №93).
For many reasons, Barack Obama made serious promises in the swearing-in ceremony during his first presidency. He promised to not only improve the economic situation of the country but also achieve foreign policy success. The Middle East, Africa, Europe, Central Asia and Far East came first in this regard. Thus, he had to solve the Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and China issues. The developments showed that Washington did not only fail to solve these issues but also created new ones. It is noteworthy that this process became even more aggravated during Obama`s second term. More specifically, the new presidency term began amidst emergence of greater difficulties (see: the previous source).
The following conclusion can be made automatically: Obama`s second presidency began with greater problems in the foreign policy. Why? In spite of official Washington`s efforts, the processes did not progress in the way it wanted to. Analysts made a thorough analysis of the issue. The major conclusion they came to is that the world is changing. The fact that only one super power is ruling the world is not recognized any longer. This gave enough reasons to introduce a new term “developing new powers.” The term indicates to the increasing role of such countries as Russia, China, India, Brazil, Turkey in the world politics (see: Amitav Acharya. The end of American world order / ”The Hindu”, 29 May 2014).
The final factor – major indicator of Obama`s foreign policy during his second term of presidency. The attitude to this factor is different. U.S. radical politicians and analysts write about “weakening leader.” They claim the USA`s exceptionality is still there, and it must dominate the world. They indicate the need to achieve an absolute hegemony in the world as a way to realize this intention. Of course, this approach envisages military presence of the USA in all corners of the globe. Others prefer to take into account the existing realities. They also do not give up America`s leadership. They just suggest a more flexible mechanism to implement it. As a result, this is all about a new model of world leadership. It acknowledges existence of states, which are capable of playing a leading role at a regional level. It recommends that they should not be allowed to aspire for something more. We believe that Obama faced this dilemma in his second presidency and he has failed to solve it so far.
What is more important: leadership or double standards?
Analysts draw attention to this issue in various contexts. They come up with some ideas related to Obama`s understanding of the “American exceptionality”. The U.S. President says: “America must always lead on the world stage… US military will always be the main component of our leadership” (see, for example: Американская исключительность: США настаивают на праве решать, какие народы можно бомбить, оккупировать и наказывать санкциями / ”MixedNews.ru”, 5 June 2014). American realists call the president, who voices such ideas, “weak” and “coward.”
This is an interesting aspect of the issue. Some U.S. circles seem to not give up the stereotype that America has ended up a winner always and everywhere. Some U.S. circles protest against Obama`s attempt to come to the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions with other geopolitical forces. A thorough analysis shows that the Washington administration takes a pretty much tough position in reality.
Thus, USA deployed significant number of military force in the Asia-Pacific basin and took the steps leading to confrontation with China and some other countries of the region. In addition, the USA significantly stepped up its relations with Burma and may use this any moment to put pressure. American radicals may not be happy with non-use of military force without delay. Obama did not use the military in resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran conflict, during developments in Egypt and Syria. Making use of this situation, Russia became more active in the Middle East.
As a whole, Obama`s regime is most of all accused of the “soft” behavior against Russia and China. It was more evident after the Ukraine developments. Europe accuses the U.S. leader that he does not fully realize the threat coming from Russia (see: Simon Shuster. A Failed Russia «Reset» Haunts Obama in Europe / ”Time”, 3 June 2014). By stating that the Kremlin is confident that America will not use force against it in Europe former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul believes it is a “tragic truth”.
Wilson Center expert for American-Russian relations Matthew Rojansky describes the fact that Obama did not visit Ukraine during his tour of Europe in the following way: “This is a defensive visit, not a proactive one. He (Barack Obama) is playing it very safe.” As is seen, many in the West demand that Obama take a tougher position against Moscow and use of military force if necessary. But the President does in a different way.
It all provides reasons to label the foreign policy of Obama in the second term of his presidency as complex and tragic. The reality is that the model of single leadership the Americans have got used to for many years is changing. It is hard for the Americans to acknowledge this psychologically. No matter how hard it is, Obama must take account of this for the statehood.
It is impossible to find any globally accepted political course in the global politics in the modern age, which can be described as a switch to a new philosophy of activity. Obama cannot go beyond this condition too. It is clear that he wants to change something. We witnessed it in Palestine, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. It is necessary to underline one element of the second presidency of Obama. It is the policy of double standards pursued on a global scale. There is different attitude to the countries under the same circumstances. The UN resolutions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are implemented immediately whereas real measures are not put in place against Armenia, which occupied 20 percent of the territory of its neighbor. The U.S.-led West does not take a clear position with respect to the resolution of conflicts in the South Caucasus.
Such an approach is still in place during Obama`s second presidency too. Western analysts do not touch upon this aspect of the issue. They seem to care only about ensuring the U.S. interests. The world is not composed of the USA only. If it is so, what is the sense of distinguishing between the first and second presidencies of Obama?
Leyla MAMMADALİYEVA
Kaynak: Newtimes.az
