The Obama Doctrine (Part 2)
As I said before I think the President’s handling of the Ukraine crisis indicates some things about his foreign policy beliefs and I think that this is a great time to try to define what President Obama’s foreign policy legacy or the Obama Doctrine might be. There have been previous attempts to do this, but I believe they were premature. We are now 6 years into the President’s time in office giving us enough information to do a little more than speculation (I hope.)
The Obama Doctrine stands on the principle that America is the world’s most powerful nation, that it is an indispensable nation and a world leader in economic, military, and political affairs. The Doctrine is firmly entrenched in the reality that America is the world’s only superpower and that America is not in decline.
In fact, Obama’s strategies indicate that he views America as atop a world structure made up of separate regions such as the European Union, Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East. Realities on the ground reflect that American power transcends each of these regions. America has interests and allies in each of these areas. This hegemonic power is undergirded by American military might, but it is America’s values that animate its authority.
Given that the President sees the world as different sets of regions, the way he projects American power is not by directly enforcing American directives, but by finding like-minded nations in each region. This makes sense because America cannot do everything and nations are more likely to take serious interest in what is going on in their own backyard. By partnering with regional powers this way, America does not exhaust itself by engaging in battles in every region and regional powers that align with American interests have the benefit of using America as an insurance policy against opposition.
While this may look like multilateralism, it is actually a way for America to effectively preserve its position at the top of the world order without engaging in unnecessary wars. America’s alliance with Europe is pretty ironclad at this point and Western civilization dominates the globe for all intents and purposes. If the combined military and economic power of the United States, European Union, and Japan is levied in the service of any world objective that objective will eventually be achieved. Western civilization controls the world economy and it is in the best interests of other nations to align themselves with the values of the West if they hope to grow into advanced nations.
Since a central premise of the Obama Doctrine is that America is the world’s only superpower, and this is supported by the fact that the United States spends more on defense than the next 9 countries combined, at the moment there are no nations which can be considered imminent threats to America. This stance effectively takes the prospect of an American preemptive attack against another nation off the table. However, it also allows the President to be secure in the knowledge that it is highly unlikely given the level of American military superiority that any other nation sees it in their interest to attack the United States. While some nations may fancy themselves powerful enough that they might consider an attack on the United States mutually assured destruction, most nations understand an attack on the United States as ensuring their own destruction. At the very least this state of affairs means America should fear no nation.
The President has himself has said that given the level of technology, he is much more concerned with the machinations of terrorist actors who do not have to consider the kind of geopolitics that nations do. American dominance of conventional warfare has effectively made the prospect of war against the United States a moot point.
This frees the President to look at world developments in a much more realistic manner. We have seen this in with Iran, Libya, Syria, and now Russia.
In Iran – The President along with the European Union adopted severe sanctions. These sanctions have now been credited with bringing Iran to the negotiating table on its nuclear weapons program.
In Libya – The President moved decisively in concert with the European Union to unseat Ghaddafi.
In Syria – The president consulted Congress about possible military involvement before adopting a strategy of containment which resulted in Syria giving up its weapons of mass destruction to Russia.
In Russia – The president has indicated that Russia is “a regional power acting out of weakness” and is conferring with the European Union to levy harsh sanctions.
I think these four examples illustrate the Obama Doctrine quite clearly. As I said earlier, there are two types of hard power. One is military and the other is economic. The Obama Doctrine asserts that:
1. The United States is the world’s preeminent global power with interests all over the globe.
2. Military action against nation states is unnecessary given America’s current position as the world’s only superpower.
3. Consistent active military pressure is necessary to discourage terrorists and is a sufficient and constant reminder of American military might.
4. Given that military power is unnecessary and at best an unpredictable tool in aligning nations with Western values, economic incentives and sanctions are the better if slower working option.
Just for the sake of redundancy this can be understood as:
• American/Western values are preeminent.
• American/Western values should be aggressively expanded.
• At this point in time economic power is more effective than military power in expanding and projecting American/Western power.
Where do you think the Obama doctrine stands on the following matters?
(1) the right of individuals/groups to voluntarily join collectivist power structures to counterbalance economic power of rival groups
(2) the right of individuals/groups to choose for themselves to OPT OUT of collectivist power structures which they were put into without asking, and which they deem to be not to their benefit
(3) the right of national self-determination, right of minorities in a state, who are geographically concentrated enough to form local majorities, to form and control their own government
(4) the right of extrajudicial killings by the US, when they are in the national interest of the US
(5) the right of extrajudicial killings by other states, when they are in the national interest of that state
(6) the right of the US to pre-emptively intervene in one of its neighbors to combat the threat of terrorism or militant extremism
(7) the right of other states to pre-emptively intervene in one of its neighbors to combat the threat of terrorism or militant extremism
(8) the right of the US to throw its weight into electoral politics in foreign countries of strategic significance
(9) the right of other states to throw their weight into electoral politics in foreign countries of strategic significance
(10) the subordination of strategic interests to principles of universal justice? In other words, rule of universal law where the exact same law applies to everyone, both at the top and bottom of the power structure, and as a matter of principle, various contradictory law ought not SELECTIVELY cited based on immediate strategic considerations (which would be short-term thinking)
(11) the legality (both theoretical, in terms of whether it was right, and practical, in terms of whether it will be punished) of the Bush Doctrine and its implementation (torture, aggressive invasion of Iraq, abdication of Geneva conventions, unilateralism, etc)
(12) the degree of expectation we should have of citizens in countries outside the US, to be receptive to our claims that (a) we are acting to their benefit and (b) that we are acting in accordance with the principles of universal justice.
(13) the right of other countries to behave like the US
First I’d like to say thanks for reading. Wow…these are great questions…I think each of these could be the topic of separate blog posts. I’ll try to answer these from my point of view here:
1, 2, 3. I’m assuming these questions are in relation to Crimea’s right to self determination. Please correct me if I’m wrong. In any case, I’ll use that as the example. First, in speaking of a doctrine we’re talking about general principles. In general, I think the Obama doctrine supports self determination. I think the real base question here is whether there has been a legitimate exercise of self determination. Crimea was once part of Russia, which was arbitrarily given to Ukraine, and then re-annexed by Russia. Yes there was a vote, but I don’t know if anyone is certain if that vote was legitimate. How can you be certain of the legitimacy of a rushed vote which happened while the area was occupied by another nation which doesn’t have the best record of holding fair elections in the first place? But self determination has always been a hallmark of American foreign policy at least theoretically.
4,5,6,7 The subject of extrajudicial killings is definitely an incredibly touchy subject. However, I think if we look at the President’s actions we can see that there is an overriding principle. As I said in the blog post, at the moment nation states are not considered imminent threats to the US for a variety of reasons. But what did President Obama say recently in response to criticism? He said “I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.” I would argue that the Obama Doctrine views the threat of terrorism as a continuous ONGOING imminent threat. This is important because under international law the only legal and defensible reason that any nation could engage in a preemptive attack is if it is under imminent threat. By initiating a war on terror President Bush put America on a permanent war footing at least against terrorists. So what I would say is the Obama Doctrine calls for extrajudicial killing when America is under imminent threat and the killing is in the national (SECURITY) interest of the US. This imminent threat basis extends to the right of the US pre-emptively intervening in one of its neighbors to combat the threat of terrorism. Theoretically, this doctrine would only support extrajudicial killing by another state IF that state was legitimately under imminent threat. Is this a gray area? YES. Should it be vigorously debated? ABSOLUTELY. I will comment a little more on this when I answer the question about whether other nations have the right to behave like the US.
8,9 Theoretically the United States does not support influencing electoral politics in foreign countries of strategic significance. Has it happened in the past? Sure. It was a common Cold War strategy. I have no idea whether or not it is going on now. I will say that I am sure multinational American corporations seek to influence the politics of other nations just as they attempt to influence American government. This is one of the reasons that the US opposes the Russian action in Crimea. It is very likely that Crimea and Ukraine’s electoral politics have been unduly influenced by the Russian government.
10. I think any doctrine would be hard pressed to encompass universal law. This gets into a philosophical question. Universal Law according to who? That is part of what geopolitical machinations are all about. The Obama Doctrine holds Western values as preeminent. That means Western values are considered universal law. Theoretically, that means rule by democracy for all people, basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equality of opportunity for all people, and rule of the majority with protection of minority rights. In practice these concepts are under attack consistently by other nations, groups, and people who don’t believe the same thing. In practice there is no universal law, only a multitude of opinions. America can only continue to project its ideas if it remains a major player on the world stage. I think any American doctrine supports Universal law if that law is in alignment with Western values. This is a long term goal. In the short term the contest of ideas must be won to make it a reality. I think the Obama doctrine bends to Universal Law as much as possible given the current geopolitical realities.
11. To me the Obama Doctrine is a clear departure from the Bush Doctrine. President Obama has clearly said he rejects torture, he was against the invasion of Iraq and consequently has not taken up any further similar invasions although he has had ample opportunity to do so. The Obama Doctrine also rejects unilateralism as a matter of practice. The Obama Doctrine relies on a strong alliance between the United States and the European Union primarily and cooperation between the United States and other regional powers secondarily in order to project power (particularly economic power.) It views unilateralism as unpredictable at best and severely damaging at worst. Unilateralism in general can produce short term results which cause damage in the long term. The Obama Doctrine embraces a form of multilateralism as the road to long term success.
12. I don’t know that the Obama Doctrine can speak to the level of trust other nations have in America. In fact, I think President Obama recognizes that there are challenges in that area and has worked to try to raise those expectations, but the receptiveness of people outside the US is a result of years and years of American actions. As a result it might be outside the purview of the Doctrine of any particular president. Don’t get me wrong…this is unfortunate, but probably true. As I said before concepts of universal justice are constantly being contested and any action is viewed from a lens of many different perspectives. People will view any action many different ways. The Obama Doctrine dictates that America will act in the service of American/Western values.
13. These are all great questions and this one gets right to the point doesn’t it? The Obama Doctrine views America as both an “indispensable” and “exceptional” nation. It views America as the world’s only superpower and it views this position as a result of superior American values. In addition the Obama Doctrine takes the view that America is under continuous imminent threat against terrorism as a result of 9/11 and other activities which show that terrorists constantly plot attacks against it. America is responsible for the security of global trade and not only its own defense but the defense of most of Europe and Western Civilization. People may not like this fact but that is pretty much the case. Given that other countries do not occupy these positions and given that the Obama Doctrine recognizes America as sitting atop a very complex global hierarchy I do not believe the Obama Doctrine (or any American foreign policy doctrine for that matter) would support the right of other countries to behave like the US in all matters. If countries want to behave like the US in terms of adopting American or Western values, America does not have a problem with that. If countries take actions that conflict with American national security objectives no matter what those actions may be, any American leader would take issue with that. People often focus on the fact that America has great power, but it also has great responsibilities. In order to carry out these responsibilities it is required to wrestle with questions that other nations simply do not. As a result, America will take actions that other nations cannot or should not.
Hey…these have all been great questions. Great food for thought! Once again, thanks for reading!
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I was indeed motivated by the overthrow of the existing power structure in Ukraine and Crimea — This situation has a lot of symmetries, within itself, and to previous crises. I think these symmetries help reveal the actual values which drive the policy decisions of the US government. (not necessarily the same as the “American values” which our foreign policy wishes to promote, as the stated goal). In addition to the values, I think we can observe a lot about the relative priorities of these values — there is definitely an order of precedence. I would even say that we can pretty easily pick out situations where our government’s value-preferences contradict our government’s rhetoric.
So just to follow up, on the subject of self-determination (#1,2,3). It sounds like the answer to that one rests almost entirely on the concept of “legitimacy”. I’ve started to hear this term a lot in the past week or two, as a replacement for “legal/illegal under international law”.
(14) Do you know if there is a more detailed definition of “legitimacy” in a claim of self-determination of some population?
(15) Is it mostly subjective?
(16) If it IS NOT mostly subjective, what are the rules for legitimacy in a claim of self-determination of some population?
(17) If it IS mostly subjective, who gets to be the judge of the legitimacy of a claim of self-determination of some population? Is it the population itself? Or is legitimacy bestowed upon the population’s claim by some other party? What is the source of legitimacy of the legitimacy-judging party itself? Also, if legitimacy is judged by some other party, is it still called self-determination? Also, what if the legitimacy-judging party stands to lose power over the population, as a result of the claim of self-determination — would this conflict of interest invalidate the whole thing? Lastly, what if the legitimacy-judging party displays a set of values in its actions that are at odds with global values / American values / etc? I guess you can see where this is going…
Thanks again for replying. I think it’s good for everyone if we openly and directly and honestly talk about this stuff!
Legitimacy is an interesting topic…
14. As I understand it, legitimacy can be established when a relatively fair election made by the people of a democratic state occurs.
15,16,17. The question of whether or not it is subjective is actually hotly contested. In states which have just come from some previous oppressive state of governance such as Iraq or Afghanistan, legitimacy is established by the international monitors which are dispatched by the UN. So in short the UN decides whether the elections were fair and thereby legitimate. If you accept the jurisdiction of the UN to do something like this then you would accept their determination as something like a universal declaration of legitimacy. However if you don’t accept the UN’s jurisdiction then you would reject their ability to determine whether or not an election is fair, and thereby whether its results are legitimate. Here once again we are reduced to a contest of ideas. If a state doesn’t like the outcome of an election it might declare the election not legitimate. Since the UN is just a deliberative body it really has no power to enforce its determinations. This is particularly sticky when it comes to disputes between permanent security council members. Which is what we have in Crimea. Russia says the results of Crimea are legitimate (although no UN monitors where allowed in to inspect) and the US and other Western nations say that since the UN could not monitor it and they have intelligence saying otherwise, the results are not legitimate and therefore NATO allied nations (Western Civilization and its allies) do not recognize it. So this gets to the crux of the conflict. Western Civilization is in conflict with Russia over its actions concerning Crimea. With Military action off the table economic sanctions are being considered as a way of forcing Russia to see things differently. Whether we like to admit it or not, in geopolitics might often makes right. The difference with America is that we believe we are mighty because our values are superior.
So theoretically the UN determines legitimacy. The thing that makes Russian actions appear so wrong from the perspective of the UN is that Russia moved unilaterally without even the pretext of consulting the UN on what should be done concerning Crimea. The UN is an international body that was established by the US primarily and it is based upon American/Western values. Therefore in a certain sense the UN is never going to really be at odds with American values. Unless America does something really stupid and openly contradictory to its stated values (like invading Iraq, the UN was against that. However, even in that case America did take the time to make a semblance of a case in front of the UN. America at least tipped its hat to UN jurisdiction in this matter. Conversely, Russia rejects the notion that the UN has any jurisdiction in Crimea.) The UN can claim this legitimacy because just about every nation in the world is a part of the UN and theoretically has agreed to be under its jurisdiction. We get into a gray area when there is a civil war because the UN is not going to declare the winner of an armed conflict. Again here unfortunately might makes right. But a general rule is that if the resulting government is not one that at least adopts the charade of democracy, the UN will not recognize it as legitimate because the underlying principle is that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is the only “proper” way to govern. In other words American values and by extension the UN holds that democracy is self determination in practice. Any other form of government prevents the people from exercising their right to self determination.
Whenever any nation is at odds with the UN they actually deploy the argument that conflict of interest invalidates the whole thing. They say things like the UN is a puppet of the US and therefore any judgement by the UN is not legitimate, but rather an expression of the US’ intent to exert its own will on global events. This is a common argument with nations that find themselves on the wrong side of the UN.
EVERY nation reserves the right to violate edicts by the UN when there are in conflict with national security interests. Russia would say that is the basis for its intervention in Crimea. The US made the same argument when it launched a war against Iraq. In practice only a few nations have the capability to undertake such an action without dramatic repercussions. The US obviously, probably Great Britain (although they have no desire to do such things if it is not supported by the US) China, and Russia. China is currently checked by other interests. Namely, I don’t think they are interested in a regional conflict which would pit them against the US, Japan, and South Korea. I don’t see how they could possibly be interested in this at least in the short term. So in a large sense this is about proving to Russia that they are no longer at a level where they can blithely ignore international protocols as defined by the UN. Again this reinforces the reality that America sits atop the global order alone.
I also agree that these things need to be discussed out in the open and people need to wrestle with these concepts. It would be heartening if our political and public policy discourse reflected some of these realities. But alas, I may be asking for too much.
Thanks for the response- nice explanation of a tricky situation.
Pingback: We must support the Iran deal | Karizmatic