An Obama Doctrine Emerges in Moscow

ABC News called President Barack Obama's trip to Russia a "breakthrough" and the new agreement to cut nuclear arms "extraordinary." Henry Kissinger compared Obama to a chess master playing simultaneous games.

But just as significant as the nuclear accords and the reset of US-Russian relations may be the worldview that Obama elaborated in his Moscow speeches. He deftly buried the deeply flawed strategic doctrine that launched an unnecessary war with Iraq and posited military force as the chief tool of US statecraft.

In his speech at the New Economic School he said:

There is sometimes a sense that old ways of thinking must prevail; a conception of power that is rooted in the past rather than in the future... In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries... As I said in Cairo, given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over an other will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game - progress must be shared.

Obama applied this thinking to America's "interest in reversing the spread of nuclear weapons and preventing their use." Rather than narrowing the threat to one or two states, he described "the core of the nuclear challenge in the 21st century":

The notion that prestige comes from holding these weapons, or that we can protect ourselves by picking and choosing which nations can have these weapons, is an illusion. In the short period since the end of the Cold War, we've already seen India, Pakistan, and North Korea conduct nuclear tests. Without a fundamental change, do any of us truly believe that the next two decades will not bring about the further spread of these nuclear weapons?"

But "picking and choosing" is exactly what we did under the doctrine elaborated by his predecessor, President George W. Bush. In his infamous "axis of evil" formulation, Bush declared the greatest threat to the United States to lays in the "nexus" of outlaw regimes, terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. The solution was to overthrow these regimes.

Iraq was the first implementation of this doctrine, but it was never intended to be the last. The war's architects expected regime change in Iraq to lead to regime change in Iran, Syria, North Korea and other states. It would trigger "a democratic tsunami," claimed American Enterprise Institute scholar Joshua Muravchik. The results were a disaster, with Iran and North Korea accelerating their nuclear programs, making more progress in the past six years than they had in the previous twelve.

Obama eulogized and then put to rest the Bush Doctrine:

Now let me be clear: America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. And we haven't always done what we should have on that front."

Obama shifts away from the neoconservative notion that the problem is not nuclear weapons but a few bad states that have nuclear weapons. Obama's threat trio is not countries that may someday have weapons, but the countries that have actually exploded them since the end of the cold war, irrespective of their political orientation: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. This group includes allies, friends and foes.

That is his point. It is the same point made by past presidents including Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan. Obama returns to this basic understanding that it the weapons themselves, not certain regimes, that must be eliminated. In order to prevent a nightmare world of "10 or 20 or 50 nuclear-armed nations" that may not "protect their arsenals and refrain from using them," he says, "America is committed to stopping nuclear proliferation, and ultimately seeking a world without nuclear weapons."

He underlined his core message: "This is not about singling out individual nations -- it's about the responsibilities of all nations."

In Prague, in Cairo, and now in Moscow, we are witnessing the emergence of an Obama Doctrine. A world view guided by universal compliance with democratic norms and the rule of law; policies driven by the convergence of shared interests and responsibilities; and a statecraft that does not shirk from the application of military force when necessary but promotes America's interests with respect for other nations and the strength of joint enterprise.

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[Catherine Fitzpatrick]

It's one thing to abandon the idea of attempting overthrow oppressive regimes abroad. That may be prudent.

It's another to abandon the idea that in fact expression of concern about human rights violations, and condemnation of tyranny, is somehow an unacceptable "interference in internal affairs". It's not.

Obama set back more than 25 years of progress in the Helsinki process by proclaiming to President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin during the summit that he recognized that the Khodorkovsky case was an "internal affair" and that he couldn't presume to tell another country's justice system what to do. This the sort of language the Soviets would invoke whenever anyone asked them about political prisoners.

But that's wrong. There are universal standards to be invoked, every one of which was violated in a case like Khodorkovsky's and many other political cases. To concede that abusiveness isn't the proper concern of outsiders then frees up the hands of thugs who do things like murder human rights activist Natalya Entemirova, who was found dead in Chechnya this week. This case follows a long line of journalists, humanitarians, clergy, and human rights workers who have been murdered in this breakaway region of Russia -- including Americans. The Obama Doctrine as it is now will not help obtain justice or deter future injustices, but it is still not too late to change the policy back.

It isn't "dominating" or "demonizing" to invoke the universality to which Moscow itself claims it adheres in human rights treaties.

[DougDeWitt]

OMG... and suddenly, I can hold my head high, and admit to the world that I am an American. Mr. Obama may emerge as the greatest statesman-President our country has ever produced.

[onenvrnos]

Wow...you come away with a sense of awe that the notion of nuclear disarmament is one that must be heralded for the world's future. Although there are many nations who do not yet share this world view, it is at least a start toward a world in which we realize we are all one. Somehow, though--deep down, conflicts will never be erased; it is with this thought that we must pick peaceful negotiations toward solving these conflicts that will inevitably rear their ugly heads just because we are human. I wish our plight wasn't so ugly, but hell...many are unable to even settle problems within our own households without decimating the "perpetrator". Perhaps some day we will have evolved into mature nations wherein we realize we must work together to solve the world's problems.

[elcojonu]

He's been in office 6 months.
Doctrines need more time than that for maduration and elaboration.
For instance, what about countries other than the U.S. and Russia that already have Nukes; where do they fit into the disarmament equation ?
Pakistan, India and Israel fit into this category; what is to be done about their Nukes ?
While these countries are allowed to have them, others will want to do likewise ( yes, that includes Iran ).
The world is not so much worried about the Nukes the U.S., Russia and China may have; these countries have too much to lose to start anything.
It's the smaller, more fanatical countries that present a problem.
It's gonna be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, to get Pakistan, India and Israel to give-up their Nukes.
That's why I see countries like Iran, Brazil and Saudi Arabia and one or two more I'm probably overlooking getting Nukes in the next 10 to 15 years ( some sooner ).

[UKOH]

Of course its going to be extremely difficult! Don't you think an exceptionally intelligent person like Obama knows this?

However if you do not even try to achieve a worthwhile goal because it is "exceptionally difficult" where does that get us? As a British ex-pat living in the USA I would say that is "unAmerican". Is not the history of this great nation rising up an challenging the seemly impossible? Didn't the USA form because it rejected "staid old business-as-usual, vested interest politics" of Europe? That is why I, as a European, have chosen to make my life here in the USA.

Obama is simply returning to the politics of sanity and turning his back on the politics of insanity. In chosing to attempt to find areas of common interests with friends and foes alike he utterly rejects the "Good Vs. Evil" "Shoot first and ask questions later" approach of the Bush years.

Just the approach itself and the true change it represents gives the best chance of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

Will it be easy? No. Will we ever achieve it? Possibly not.

Lets not give up, however, before we even try.

[MTOrtega]

Brilliant analysis.
Kudos to President Obama.
Process...­process...­process...
For more than a century "zero-sum" U.S. policy has alienated most of the world.
President Obama is brilliant enough to know his work is the genesis of a 'win-win' global policy.
What remains to be seen?
The political will for change from Congress.
The ability for a certain % of U.S. citizens to embrace this opportunity and overcome their unfounded fears.

[Fractal122635]

Right... he is a master, at obfuscation. Let's get rid of the nukes, as long as it's ours. But it's fine for Iran and North Korea to have them because we can't interfere, or dictate to others.

Funny, but when someone holds a gun to my head, I want to say "Don't shoot" not "you have every right to shoot if you choose".

[JJennifer]

filmsart said: "Did it make anyone safer for the USSR and the USA to have nukes? No it didn't."
You are right, look at all the nuclear wars we had with Russia.
Try this one on for size, Obama, if threatened by Russia, would give away the store in a New York minute. He's already doing it.

[JakeintheSouth]

I agree with much of the posters below, and the analysis of this article is downright shallow. Obviously, the writer has not been reading a whole lot on the recent ousting of the democratically elected president of Honduras.

While many countries -moderate and left ,including Argentina and most Latin American countries- have withdrawn aid and attempted some level of sanctions against the right wing coup conspirators, the Obama administration has continued funneling military aid to the fledgling autocracy. Additionally, there have been no penalties, trade or otherwise, other than some vacuous words about "respecting democracy". Not only this, but administration officials didn't even hide their support- noting that they knew of the coup plot before it took place.

Obama has already laid clear his message to Latin America: go you're own way, and we'll put you right back on track if we can. There is nothing new about this doctrine, unless you mean less visible blood.

[Onealtx]

There is no way to point out every fallacy in your statement but let's start with this. The ousted President has worked closely with the Obama adminstration coming straight here after being kicked out of Honduras. I don't know if you realize that we are one country in a great big world, the only way to really affect change is to drop this ridiculous posture America has that we are the World Police, so watch your back if you do something we don't like. The world is changing as the money shifts from the hands of the "1st World" to the hands of emerging countries. We must keep up as a player on the stage not as the lead actor! Many in Honduras are stating that the change was through democratic means, not in fact a coup. The most effective action is one of diplomacy - something Americans seem to have very little patience in tolerating.
America has in fact halted military action with Honduras, but has not witheld certain funding for the protection of the innocent people caught in the crossfires of meglomaniacs!
The prism by which we see the world is still is made up of many bended lights. We must try to keep our minds open to get the clearest picture possible.

[jackwaddington]

The United States has been promoting the principle of "Democracy" ever since it's creation. What Goes for democracy here is NOT democracy but 'representative democracy'. There is no democracy in the home; its a dictatorship, usually daddy. There is no democracy in the school: it's a dictatorship, usually the teacher. There is no democracy in the work place: it's a dictatorship, usually the boss. It is this arrogant and conceited notion that the United States invented democracy that has actually thwarted REAL democracy throughout the last 200 years, throughout the world.

In it's own version of democracy the US destroyed (deliberately) any other attempt to bring about real democracy about. Until and unless any president will acknowledge this, there will be no world consensus.

[weishi]

You are correct. The United States is a republic NOT a democracy. That is a decision made either consciously or through complacency by the American people. However, democracy is not always the best route either. Your examples of a class room or a business do not warrant and would not necessarily benefit from a democratic structure.

The first requirement for a succesful democracy is an agreement by all it's citizens that they want a democracy. The second is that they participate in it.

Considering the vast cultural differences throughout the globe, a world consensus on democracy is not likely to ever happen. A more succesful aproach and one I hope the current administration embraces is a mutual acceptance and understanding of those differences. There is no reason a teacher cannot learn from her students. Americans should not be so arrogant as to think they have all the answers.

[Kaviraj]

As for the classroom democracy, read "Summerhill".
It is about a school for "difficult children" in the UK.
It works well and those kids all become successful entrepreneurs.
So the same in the workplace. My son runs a business and all the workers have shares. It is democratic and very successful.

[RogerHWerner]

Between President Monroe and President Truman we had precisely two formal doctrines: The Monroe and Truman Doctrines. In the past 30 years it seems as if the media tries to give every president a 'doctrine' based on what they say in public speeches. Enough already. There is no Obama Doctrine and there was never honestly a Bush Doctrine. Historically, a presidential doctrine is a policy that is universally acknowlkedged, widely accepted, and that transcends and individual presidency. The Bush Doctrine was dead after the last election so it was never really a doctrine as the term has been historically used. Does anyone even recall the Carter Doctrine? As far as I know that remains US policy but it is hardly ever invoked. Then there was the Reagan Doctrine that lasted as long as we faced the USSR in a global stand off. The term has been abused by the media and it has reached the point where it has become trite and irrelevant. Each president has policies so lets just call them that and leave the term doctrine for application to actual widely acknowledged policies that transcend presidencies.

[TimnySlagle]

"Henry Kissinger compared Obama to a chess master playing simultaneous games."

Ah, no he didn't. He never used the word "master."

Kissinger wasn't suggesting that Obama was a brilliant strategist, he was saying that he has his hands full, that he might be in over his head.

[ModernTimes1]

More like Class B player trying to play a simultaneous game with 10 Grandmasters. Let's hope he's a quick study.
Still Obama deserves American support, with a healthy degree of constructive criticism when merited.

[pairunoyd]

Is it 'rule of law' or 'activist judges'? I cant keep up with all this. Somebody help me.

[Wingedbull]

Wow, what a difference from Bush to President Obama.

[ceindependence]

So you say the annointed one turned around the years and history of the way Russia looks at the world. Your nuts! Do you remember the minor issue with the Putin and the state of Georgia. You guys will get the US killed. Lets just lay down our arms and all the evil people will love us. Have you read any history? We agreed to agree to reduce our nuclear arms. In what way do you think Putin will allow us into to inspect his arms reduction? It seems our grandfathers died in Europe during WWI and WWII for Obama to give it all away. How progressive!

Obama will go down as our worst president in history. Even worse than Jimmy "I approve any vote" Carter. We better start learning to speak russian.

[mymic1]

people like you speak of a grandfather's sacrifice because you know of no such sacrifice of your own.

well, as a present day veteran and survivor of a dark day in Beirut October 1983, I can tell you first hand that he has done more in six months to secure this nation than all of the previous eight years under the administration of the coward and deserter.

Obama will be the catalyst of people movements around the world. the eveidence is there to see just in what has already taken place in the last few months. The connection between his address to the Muslim world and the results of the political activity in both Lebanon and Iran could not be more clear. His progress with the Russians on arms reduction is another example. This in only six months.

come back to the present and talk about those fathers and sons who died needlessy and were sacrificed in Iraq so the draft dodger could make money for him and his buddies at Haliburton...

How patriotic!

[andrewbown]

I could not have said it better. Many of the things that are happening now won't be felt or maybe understood until many years from now. What's important is the groundwork (foundation) for a more intelegent world.

[Onealtx]

Right On!! Mymic1, I wish you had the same stage Joe the plumber did!

[jhm1953]

I can't recall having read a more uninformed and ignorant point of view, especially the comment that "Obama will go down as our worst president in hsitory..." It just boggles the mind to read such commentary. Another double digit IQ obviously.

[BartRoberts]

Not until I see Bush and Cheney doing the perp walk, will I believe in "The Obama Doctrine," his committment to the rule of law.

We brought criminals to trial after WW II for crimes against humanity. Surely the blood of hundreds of Iraqi innocents, killed in an illegal war The Bush-Cheney administration lied to get us into, should count for something.