Obama's "Timidity" is a Foreign Policy Virtue

On Sunday, Ariana Huffington and I shared a platform about transformative presidencies at a Truman Library forum in Kansas City. She drew an interesting contrast between the audacity of Obama's campaign and the caution of his domestic policy. Certainly, Obama's conciliatory approach has been notable. He has not followed FDR in throwing down the gauntlet before his domestic opponents by "welcoming their enmity." Whatever the effects on domestic policy -- and as usually, Arianna has a point -- I replied that his conciliatory approach has been a good approach on foreign policy.

Look what he inherited -- a global economic crisis, two difficult wars, erosion of the non-proliferation regime by North Korea and Iran, deterioration of the Middle East peace process, and the rising strength of China just for starters. Obama's dilemma was how to manage this sad inheritance while creating his own vision of how Americans should deal with the world.

He did that with his theme of "a new era of engagement with the world." Through a series of symbolic gestures and speeches (Prague, Cairo, Accra, the United Nations and others), Obama worked wonders in restoring American soft or attractive power in his first year of office. As a recent Pew poll reported, "in many countries opinions of the United States are now as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office."

Skeptics regard soft power as over-rated, but it is a mistake to discount the role that transformative leaders can play in changing the context of difficult issues. Power involves setting agendas and creating others' preferences as well as pushing and shoving. Soft power alone rarely solves hard problems. That is why the administration speaks of "smart power" that successfully combines hard and soft power resources in different contexts. But soft power can create an enabling rather than a disabling environment for policy. Diplomats report that Obama's success in brokering agreements at NATO and G-20 summits was assisted by his popularity.

When Obama came into office, his economic advisers told him there was one chance in three that we were on the brink of another depression. We have successfully avoided that, and Obama was able to help organize a surprising degree of international cooperation on economic issues. Unlike FDR, who torpedoed an international economic conference in 1933, and failed to halt the spread of "beggar they neighbor" policies that made the depression worse, Obama's soft power helped to promote international cooperation when it was vital. And there was a certain audacity of hope in that pursuit.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

 

Comments

[Gimlet29]

Look what he inherited -- a global economic crisis, two difficult wars, erosion of the non-proliferation regime by North Korea and Iran, deterioration of the Middle East peace process, and the rising strength of China just for starters. Obama's dilemma was how to manage this sad inheritance while creating his own vision of how Americans should deal with the world.

I am so sick of these spin articles for Obama. He knew what he was getting into and spelled out a plan to make course corrections. Now he deviates and you defend by these "Look what he inherited" and "Lets blame Bush" articles. This is getting old and worn out and has lost all traction. Its time to live up to the promises. So live up to the hype of hope and change. Get out of Iraq and Afganistan today. TODAY! Thats why he was voted in. To prolong these wars is insane. Yankee come home please.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/obamas-timidity-is-a-fore_b_344064.html

[buttonz]

Doesn't anyone understand that diplomacy is not the art of using words but the art of using leverage?? Diplomacy can be more deadly than war. Look at what diplomacy did to Iraq in the 1990's. Several times more people died from sanctions and poverty in Iraq than were killed in violence in the past 6-7 years. So with the logic that is being applied today, Clinton is responsible for more dead Iraqis than Bush and he didn't even occupy the country!

[dogface]

It's easy to agree and support Nye's general premise, however, when contrast with Obama's empty or unfilled promises the premise falls short. The GITMO prison was established in days and could be undone in weeks. If this nation of cowards is too personally or politically afraid to put GITMO prisoners in the US, then put then in prisons in either territories or possessions. The first time we left Iraq we left within weeks - we can do that again, yes we can. The distinguishing point from Nye's valid premise is that us former Obama supporters are not asking him here to embark on new, uncharted paths that would justify contemplation; rather we ask Obama to undue classical, gross governmental errors. There is no virtue in timidly when undoing gross negligence or semi-criminal error.

[IRstudentforlife]

Thank you Professor Nye for an insightful article. I was fortunate enough to hear you lecture on soft power at my university in 2008. Unfortunately, President Obama's foreign policy successes so far have been overshadowed by his domestic battles. As an undergraduate aspiring to pursue international relations at the PhD level, I am always enthusiastic to hear scholars whose work I respect speak out publicly on policy issues. The propositions you put forth with Professor Keohane in Power and Interdependence continue to influence my undergraduate research. If only the policy "practitioners" considered issues with the same rigor as many academics, we might not be bogged down in two wars right now. While Obama is demonstrating the efficacy of a liberal institutionalist approach, I am afraid Obama is trying to play it politically safe with what seems to be plans to use a "surge lite" strategy in Afghanistan. From what I understand, in order for counterinsurgency wars to work, they require a Powell Doctrine approach of overwhelming force and ground troop levels. Anything less would surely lead to a prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful effort. The Powell Doctrine approach isn't even guaranteed. I would hope to hear some more commentary from you concerning Obama's Afghanistan policy in the near future.

[zell]

I agree with Mr. Nye that "timidity" in foreign policy is a virtue. However, I do not think anyone will disagree with him on this, except the Republicans. I believe that we could all agree that the President should be "audacious" when it comes to standing up for We, the People in domestic and healthcare issues......In fact, the less the President is willing to send more troops in to harm's way, the more he will earn the Nobel Peace prize.

[anthonyve]

Right on! As a non-American who travels regularly in Asia and Europe, my observation is that President Obama has pretty much already undone the PR damage of the Bush years.
And, let's face it, America does need help from the rest of the world. If you insist on going it alone, then you have all the costs. And you folks can't afford that any more. Actually.... you never could.

[Gimlet29]

What a POS. Go it alone? Maybe we should have stayed home when hitler had his foot on your throat and was butchering anyone who got in his way. The PR damage you speak of. As an American Veteran I could care less what the world thinks of America. So screw off. I hope BO brings all of our forces home like he promised. I have been to Europe and Asia and I hope I never have to go back. The statue of liberty, take it back to france. The UN put it in bejing for all care. As far as Obama is concerned he should flip off the world bring our soldiers home from around the world and let the world settle their own problems.

Oh yeah dont forget they just erected a statue to President Clinton in europe for saving their sorry asses from hitlers mini me in the 90's.

[threegoal]

I almost wonder if Ariana thinks that Obama got elected Prime Minister and he is also the leader of the Parliamentary majority. He is not, and he has to work with an allied, but independent, group of legislators that cover an ideological spectrum that spans both sides of his moderate liberal orientation.

Also unlike his parliamentary counterparts, who deal with a loyal opposition, he would like to have even a sane one (others have said this or something similar). He is trying to do his part to keep the country together despite their divisive behaviors. It ain't easy.

As a man of color he probably senses that too much of the country will not react well to his being an angry, aggressive leader, even though a Caucasian leader might be able to get away with more. That's not that he's doing anything wrong, it's just that this country still isn't done growing up on the subject of race. That's sad, but true, and he can't waive his hand and change it.

As a former Senator he has seen what happens when Congress is of the same party as the President and cedes its Constitutional role. He and the Congress have to work it out. If you want to help him, elect more good Democratic legislators, replacing both some Blue Dogs and some crazy Republicans.

This is long term deal. 10 month measurements are premature.

[Mecheng]

Putin and Ahmadinejad have both told Obama to go to hell, Israel is pissed off at us and Great Britian thinks we are now weak. This is the image we want? Get real.

[unclelew]

Surely, if Bush had looked into Putin's soul and like what he saw, how could you have such a low opinion of the Russian PM?

[brotherskeeper]

I travel constantly, I have never felt as personally safe or respect as a nation. Ahmedinijad is hanging by a thin thread domestically, precisely because he cannot rally the masses and clerical class behind the previous president's grossly ill-timed "axis of evil." And the Iranian people all heard our President apologize for the overthrow of Mossadeqh - which is at its core the real basis for popular antithesis in Iran. Obama deflated the issue by addressing it publicly, honestly and with national integrity. Putin's also got more problems domestically and in the former soviet Sphere because he can't point to US "clown car" foreign policy. Remember the genius of Bush policy in Georgia - exactly who did Putin tell to go to hell again? As for the Brits I can't find one who doesn't start a conversation on the subject of the last presidential election without saying, "we were so relieved." And Israel is angry - well gee, if they weren't already completely dependent on US support and still calling us their closest and most important ally well I might care - some times you have to speak truth to your friends. That is, if you know how. I suppose, some folks just repeat what Glenn Beck tells them.

[jeanrenoir]

Well said, Mr. Nye. Obama's brought sanity back to the White House. Tragically, Bush and the neocons may have left him an unwinnable war to win, because of their criminal neglect of Afghanistan and Bin Laden with their amazingly stupid invasion of Iraq, no doubt to "help" Likud's version of Israel. At least Obama will be as thoughtful as possible in dealing with the horrendous mess Bush and Co. left him abroad, as he has been with the almost equally disastrous mess they left him at home.

[August369]

What exactly is transformative about Obama's foreign policy? Sure, I can see that he doesn't wave a rhetorical big stick like his predecessor did but I fail to see how he transformed foreign policy toward Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel-Palestine?

[fedupwithpolitics]

I suppose if you take a Eurocentric view you could say that Obama has restored good will towards the US. However, by extending the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and retreating on peace in the ME, he has not garnered any good will from a vast majority of people in the world. And he has lost a lot of his base.

[bigpaws23]

well that soft power certainly is changing hearts and minds. The President is getting played by Russia, North Korean and Iran. Diplomacy won't work unless you're willing to back it up. Clearly Obama can only talk a good game but can't deliver results. He caved to Russians by cutting conventional forces and the missile shield, and what did we get it return? Nothing. Putin is laughing at him.

[Dunelm]

Thank you! I do not agree with Ms. Huffington that the Obama presidency is timid. The problem is that Americans have become so used to bullying in the last eight years that we do not recognize transformative leadership. Also, of course, we are very impatient people who live in an insty-fix world--Obama is not that kind of decision-maker.

[DuganS1]

The only thing Obama's timidity is going to accomplish is to guarantee that Iran will have nuclear weapons soon. The result of this will be a war between Israel and Iran.

[audadvnc]

Soft power is fine when dealing with France. It hasn't worked with Israel's abuse of their Palestinian people.