As readers of this blog will
know, I am a fan of President Obama and his administration. I believe he has
achieved much to benefit American society in his five plus years in office. For
example, he inherited an economy in its worse state since the 1930s and has
overseen its recovery. The American car industry survived as a result of his government’s
intervention. And virtually all Americans now have access to healthcare which
they can afford.
However, there is an area of
policy where the incumbent’s administration has shown itself to be feeble. As
in the past century, American foreign policy has been questionable, not to
mention inconsistent. FDR wanted free trade but told the trading world to keep
its hands off China. Truman agreed to provide a home for the United Nations and
within no time was at loggerheads with its administrative leaders.
Eisenhower failed to realise that
by interfering in Vietnam, he meddled in a civil war. The Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon and Ford administrations were ensnared by Vietnam, ending in ignominious
defeat. Carter agreed terms of a SALT treaty with the Russians, only to find it
rejected by Congress.
Every administration since World
War II has got foreign policy ideology wrong. There was a time after the War when
Foggy Bottom – the home of the State Department – showed how foggy its thinking
was when it stated that everything relating to communism came out of Moscow! In
other words, the Chinese were of no matter, merely the Kremlin’s playthings, a
point of view that might have amused Chairman Mao.
Reagan’s aggressive stance
brought about the end of the Cold War, as he spent enormous sums on the
military. He was fortunate to avoid impeachment over the Iran-Contra affair. By
1993, the occupant of the White House had lost the taste for war. Clinton,
quite rightly, feared home reaction to American soldiers in body bags. His
successor, the self-proclaimed “war president”, engaged in The War on Terror, with
disastrous results for America.
President Obama is now faced with
a number of foreign threats. In my view, the biggest danger to world peace is
the probable desire of the Russian government for hegemony. The annexation of
the Crimea and the insurgency in east Ukraine may be just the start of a plan
to regain the former USSR. America shows no sign of leading its allies in
opposition to Mr Putin, save through economic sanctions which are unlikely to work.
Just look at trade sanctions against South Africa in the 1970s and 80s.
Instead of facing down the
Russian incursion, the west is concentrating its aim on IS. The disgusting and
disgraceful beheading of three men has galvanised the Americans into
coalition-building and likely military action against these jihadists. Let’s
look at what is going on. The media has reported that IS has 30,000 fighting
men. How is it possible to defeat a force of this size by air power alone?
Soldiers on the ground will be needed but America has declared it will not fight
IS this way. Others will have to do it.
It was reported this week that
twenty six nations are joining together to fight IS. But no sooner was the
coalition announced when it showed cracks. Turkey withdrew because it feared
reprisals on its citizens. Germany said it wouldn’t participate. The British
foreign secretary said British air power would not be used and was chastised
publicly by Downing Street for failing to be on message. Iran has declared its
lack of faith in American policy. This is no way to conduct a war.
Add to these complications that
IS must be challenged in Syria. America and the United Kingdom are already
fighting the Assad regime. What next? Furthermore, the anti-IS coalition includes
the Saudis, who are predominately Sunni Muslims. Will they support the Iraqi Shiites?
Finally, if American troops are
involved in a coalition fight on the ground, American law states that its
soldiers must be led by an American. Will the coalition partners agree to this?
I am staggered by the idiocy of current
American diplomacy. It’s reminiscent of the Blair government which would
announce a new policy before the details had been scrutinised. Henry Kissinger was
the prince of American foreign policy. His style was to conduct his romantic
affairs in the public gaze. “Power,” he said, “is the greatest aphrodisiac.”
However, his diplomatic deals were negotiated in private. Please, Mr President,
take a lesson from HK. Do you think IS don’t know what is happening when
everything is publicised? Stop telling your
enemies what you’re going to do. Get agreement from your coalition partners in
private and take your opponents by surprise.
No comments:
Post a Comment