Domestic resistance, rising global challenges make it tough for US to continue being No. 1
By LEON HADAR 02 December 2009
‘You used to be big,’ says the B-movie hack screenwriter Joe Gillis (portrayed by William Holden) when he meets the faded and aging silent-film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) in her decaying mansion in Billy Wilder’s classic film-noir Sunset Boulevard (1950).
‘I am big. It’s the pictures that got small,’ responds the bristling Desmond/Swanson. To which the sneering Gillis/Holden replies: ‘I knew there was something wrong with them.’
Some of criticism of President Barak Obama’s foreign policy coming from neoconservatives - and occasionally also from progressives on the left - remind me of those famous Norma Desmond lines.
America is still the world’s ‘only remaining superpower’, the detractors argue. And yet under the current administration, this supposedly great power is being pushed around by China, disrespected by Russia, dismissed by Pakistan, ignored by Iran, and manipulated by Israel.
If Americans are the masters of Pax Americana, why can’t we talk the Chinese into revaluing their currency; induce the Russians to impose sanctions on Iran; compel the Pakistanis to end their support for the jihadis; bully the Iranians into ending their nuclear-military programme; and get the Israelis to stop building new Jewish settlements on the West Bank?
The critics think that America is still the Big Boy on the global block and Washington has failed to use its enormous power to deliver results because the White House has a weak president who just does not have what it takes to lead America in this world. America is big. It’s the president who got small.
Indeed, while conservatives who are not satisfied with the new Afghanistan strategy insist that Mr. Obama should be sending more troops to the Hindu-Kush, critics on the left fault the White House for not getting rid Hamid Karazi, the politically corrupt leader of that country, and for failing to turn Pakistan into a non-failed state.
Then there is Mr. Obama’s decision to abandon a planned missile-defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of an effort to ‘reset’ the US relationship with Russia. So why is Washington still waiting for a clear pledge from Moscow to support economic sanctions against Iran if it refuses to work-out a nuclear deal with the international community? And why should Americans wait for a green-light from Vladimir Putin to allow Georgia and Ukraine into Nato?
And apropos Iran; where are the diplomatic rewards that America should have been receiving from Iran in return for Mr. Obama’s stated willingness to engage with the Ayatollahs in Teheran?
As the neoconservatives see it, only the threat of military power will bring an end to Iran’s drive to develop nuclear weapons.
More than that, both right-wing and liberal critics seem to share the view that Washington should ‘do something’ to assist the pro-democracy movement in Iran. And the members of a similar right-left coalition have slammed Mr. Obama for refusing to meet the Dalai Lama before leaving for his trip to China and for not raising China’s human rights violations and its protectionist economic approach (by tying the value of the yuan to that of the US dollar) during his meetings in Beijing.
When it comes to the Middle East, Mr. Obama is being challenged by his political supporters who expected him to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and in particular, to pressure Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to stick to his commitment to freeze the buildup of Jewish settlements; while right-wing detractors accuse the president of ‘abandoning’ Israel in order to ‘appease’ the Arabs.
On the issue of the Middle East as well as on other foreign policy challenges, Mr. Obama has to deal with the wide gap between the realities of global politics and economics, and the expectations that he may have created upon entering office.
Many of his fans had assumed that Mr. Obama’s multiculturalist persona and cosmopolitan disposition, not to mention his charisma and star qualities, would help him win the hearts and minds of publics and elites around the world.
There is no doubt that through his personality and life-story, coupled with manufactured media events, friendly gestures and cool style, Mr. Obama has been able to start changing America’s global brand name. But that his media image and style have failed to produce any dramatic foreign policy success does not reflect a breakdown of presidential leadership, an ineffective decision-making process, a lack of moral authority or some sort of personal intellectual deficiency. Mr. Obama is certainly not a small-time president.
In order to understand the constraints operating on Mr. Obama as he tries to pursue his foreign policy agenda, one should reread US National Intelligence Council reports which had been issued one year before he was elected president.
It predicted continued US economic and military decline, the rise of a multi-polar system in which America will have to share power with China, India and other players.
‘By 2025, the US will find itself as one of a number of important actors on the world state, albeit still the most powerful one,’ it concluded.
While the financial melt-down and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have accelerated this process of American decline, the elites in Washington have been unwilling to accept that reality. They still assume that America could ‘do something’ to impose its interests and values worldwide.
At the same time, the political right seems to be operating under the delusion that a Republican president a la Reagan - and unlike Mr. Obama - would be able revive and even strengthen American global power.
But even a Roosevelt, a Truman, a Kennedy or Reagan would have no choice but to deal with the reality that is facing Mr. Obama. Domestic resistance and rising global challenges make it more and more difficult for Washington to secure its military and economic hegemony on its own - to continue being No. 1. It is now necessary to work with other powers to contain threats to the international system while trying ensure that the United States is at least a first among equals.
Unfortunately, many in Washington are going to look at the mirror and assert that: ‘We’re Big. It’s the guy in the White House that makes us look small.’
2 comments:
Americans unable to accept US decline
Domestic resistance, rising global challenges make it tough for US to continue being No. 1
By LEON HADAR
02 December 2009
‘You used to be big,’ says the B-movie hack screenwriter Joe Gillis (portrayed by William Holden) when he meets the faded and aging silent-film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) in her decaying mansion in Billy Wilder’s classic film-noir Sunset Boulevard (1950).
‘I am big. It’s the pictures that got small,’ responds the bristling Desmond/Swanson. To which the sneering Gillis/Holden replies: ‘I knew there was something wrong with them.’
Some of criticism of President Barak Obama’s foreign policy coming from neoconservatives - and occasionally also from progressives on the left - remind me of those famous Norma Desmond lines.
America is still the world’s ‘only remaining superpower’, the detractors argue. And yet under the current administration, this supposedly great power is being pushed around by China, disrespected by Russia, dismissed by Pakistan, ignored by Iran, and manipulated by Israel.
If Americans are the masters of Pax Americana, why can’t we talk the Chinese into revaluing their currency; induce the Russians to impose sanctions on Iran; compel the Pakistanis to end their support for the jihadis; bully the Iranians into ending their nuclear-military programme; and get the Israelis to stop building new Jewish settlements on the West Bank?
The critics think that America is still the Big Boy on the global block and Washington has failed to use its enormous power to deliver results because the White House has a weak president who just does not have what it takes to lead America in this world. America is big. It’s the president who got small.
Indeed, while conservatives who are not satisfied with the new Afghanistan strategy insist that Mr. Obama should be sending more troops to the Hindu-Kush, critics on the left fault the White House for not getting rid Hamid Karazi, the politically corrupt leader of that country, and for failing to turn Pakistan into a non-failed state.
Then there is Mr. Obama’s decision to abandon a planned missile-defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of an effort to ‘reset’ the US relationship with Russia. So why is Washington still waiting for a clear pledge from Moscow to support economic sanctions against Iran if it refuses to work-out a nuclear deal with the international community? And why should Americans wait for a green-light from Vladimir Putin to allow Georgia and Ukraine into Nato?
And apropos Iran; where are the diplomatic rewards that America should have been receiving from Iran in return for Mr. Obama’s stated willingness to engage with the Ayatollahs in Teheran?
As the neoconservatives see it, only the threat of military power will bring an end to Iran’s drive to develop nuclear weapons.
More than that, both right-wing and liberal critics seem to share the view that Washington should ‘do something’ to assist the pro-democracy movement in Iran. And the members of a similar right-left coalition have slammed Mr. Obama for refusing to meet the Dalai Lama before leaving for his trip to China and for not raising China’s human rights violations and its protectionist economic approach (by tying the value of the yuan to that of the US dollar) during his meetings in Beijing.
When it comes to the Middle East, Mr. Obama is being challenged by his political supporters who expected him to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and in particular, to pressure Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to stick to his commitment to freeze the buildup of Jewish settlements; while right-wing detractors accuse the president of ‘abandoning’ Israel in order to ‘appease’ the Arabs.
On the issue of the Middle East as well as on other foreign policy challenges, Mr. Obama has to deal with the wide gap between the realities of global politics and economics, and the expectations that he may have created upon entering office.
Many of his fans had assumed that Mr. Obama’s multiculturalist persona and cosmopolitan disposition, not to mention his charisma and star qualities, would help him win the hearts and minds of publics and elites around the world.
There is no doubt that through his personality and life-story, coupled with manufactured media events, friendly gestures and cool style, Mr. Obama has been able to start changing America’s global brand name. But that his media image and style have failed to produce any dramatic foreign policy success does not reflect a breakdown of presidential leadership, an ineffective decision-making process, a lack of moral authority or some sort of personal intellectual deficiency. Mr. Obama is certainly not a small-time president.
In order to understand the constraints operating on Mr. Obama as he tries to pursue his foreign policy agenda, one should reread US National Intelligence Council reports which had been issued one year before he was elected president.
It predicted continued US economic and military decline, the rise of a multi-polar system in which America will have to share power with China, India and other players.
‘By 2025, the US will find itself as one of a number of important actors on the world state, albeit still the most powerful one,’ it concluded.
While the financial melt-down and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have accelerated this process of American decline, the elites in Washington have been unwilling to accept that reality. They still assume that America could ‘do something’ to impose its interests and values worldwide.
At the same time, the political right seems to be operating under the delusion that a Republican president a la Reagan - and unlike Mr. Obama - would be able revive and even strengthen American global power.
But even a Roosevelt, a Truman, a Kennedy or Reagan would have no choice but to deal with the reality that is facing Mr. Obama. Domestic resistance and rising global challenges make it more and more difficult for Washington to secure its military and economic hegemony on its own - to continue being No. 1. It is now necessary to work with other powers to contain threats to the international system while trying ensure that the United States is at least a first among equals.
Unfortunately, many in Washington are going to look at the mirror and assert that: ‘We’re Big. It’s the guy in the White House that makes us look small.’
Post a Comment