Can Obama look beyond the Middle East?

The Barack Obama model is very attractive for the third-world. A highly educated, almost cerebral candidate with exceptional oratory skills can rise quickly to the political destination. This is not a bad deal for a country like India. Just imagine, 32 Barack Obama types of politicians rising in a state like Rajasthan, India. They can pull a backward state like Rajasthan into a contemporary India with solid ambitions and a high-tech methodology. But when it comes to the United States of America, ambition and technology are not enough. America is not just the leader of the free-world; it is the leader of the whole world. In such a situation, the President of the United States becomes the defacto leader of the world. It is a daunting challenge and requires a global vision. President-elect Obama is being compared to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) since his election on November 4, 2008. No two leaders could be more different than Lincoln and Roosevelt. President Abraham Lincoln was an American leader, FDR was a global leader! Few people in this country have any understanding about Roosevelt’s knowledge about Europe and the rest of the world.

Barack Obama is very much like Lincoln. He could change the American mind-set forever. But Obama lacks the vision of FDR. He talks about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but rarely about Brazil, Russia, India and China. His choice of Joe Biden as his running-mate was driven by the crisis in Georgia, not by any strategic vision. His desire for Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State is driven more by some political calculation than any global initiative. Barack Obama is likely to be a domestic President like Bill Clinton. He is also being led into the quick-sands of middle-east, just like his predecessors. George W Bush has been no role-model for any future President of the United States but he refused to get involved in the ‘Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’. Bill Clinton on the other hand couldn’t see beyond Europe. He neglected Afghanistan-Pakistan situation and the rise of Taliban and Al-Qaeda, till it was too late in his Presidency. Basically, the Middle East and Europe (including the former Soviet Union) have consumed the US foreign policy for the past 40 years.

There are unprecedented opportunities for the next President of the United States of America in Africa, Asia and South America. There is a lot of work to be done in Australia, Canada and Russia. The Secretary of State like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Bill Richardson can not measure up to the huge challenge! Obama needs a Richard Lugar or Chuck Hagel with atleast 3 high-powered Deputy Secretaries of State to handle the enormous task ahead. China is loosing Pakistan to India and would therefore make push for Burma. South Africa and the ‘African Union’ could transform the whole continent into a vibrant market. Brazil is emerging as a docile super-power while Mexico drifts. Japan is almost forgotten these days and India remains a land of contradictions. There is plenty of young talent out there, ready to be noticed and engaged. The US State Department needs a fresh blood. Career diplomats are unable to break open the box. The last three Deputy Secretaries of State, Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick and John Negroponte are all nationalistic ideologues and have not served this country well. Barack Obama appears to be unwilling to change the paradigm. Where is the much-hyped Change?

Charlie Rose – BARACK OBAMA (FROM 11/23/04)

What is America’s Foreign Policy?

The Foreign Policy of the United States has become skewed since September 11, 2001. You ask either Presidential candidate about the US foreign policy and he would talk about Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran and the emerging threat to the world. If you happen to ask McCain about his foreign policy vision, he would add the Israel-Palestine conflict and maybe trade with China. Conversely, if you happen to ask Obama the same question, he would mention Pakistan and Kenya to show his better credentials. The worst thing about the whole conversation is the knowledge of the person who is asking the questions in the first place. How did we reach here?

United States of America has followed an isolationist foreign policy for most of it’s existence. The first major international entanglement occurred during the First World War. America joined the Allied Powers to defeat the Central Powers but refused to Join the League Of Nations after the Treaty of Versailles. This engagement was driven because of America’s self interest rather than any moral obligations. The United States was facing the threats from German U-boats to it’s maritime trade and was therefore driven to protect it’s vital national interests. Once an uneasy peace was negotiated in Europe, Americans went back to its isolationist posture.

There has been no real debate about America’s lack of international participation during the period between the First and the Second World Wars. This isolationist attitude, in my opinion, resulted in the rise of Nazism, Fascism and Communism in Europe and Russia. The British Empire was not in a position to handle the events in Europe and beyond. There was a power vacuum at the international level and Hitler filled that space with tragic consequences. I believe this resulted in creating the environment for the Second World War. With this, America was back at the table.

The election of 1932 and the takeover of the United States Presidency on March 4, 1933 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought the American isolation to an end. Roosevelt, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Navy was no nativist. He was not only familiar with South America but also acutely aware of the growing European dilemma. The US congress tried everything to continue with it’s paranoia with international affairs, but Roosevelt was educated enough to reject that and built foreign alliances. These initiatives served him well during World War II.

The road to Tehran goes via New Delhi!

This is not my recommendation. It was suggested by Shashi Tharoor (former UN Under-Secretary General) to Fareed Zakaria on June 22, 2008. I just happen to agree with it. Tharoor was Zakaria’s guest on his newly minted TV show “Fareed Zakaria-GPS” on CNN. The other two guests were Christiane Amanpour (chief international correspondent for CNN) and Walter Russell Mead (Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for US foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations).

Just THINK about it!

It is not such an outlandish idea after all. India has the second largest Shia Muslim population in the world, after Iran and also the second largest Muslim population in the world, after Indonesia. Iran and India have had long and traditional relations for over a millennium. India is the only country that Iran would probably trust. Instead you have America (a traditional tormentor of Iran), pushing Briton and Russia (both former invaders) in their face. Is this the way to negotiate an agreement with an adversary? When nothing worked, they invited China (a stranger to Iran) for a joint blind date. Can there be something even more ridiculous than that?

Never waste a former President!

A two-term limit for an American President is not a bad idea as long as you don’t waste the valuable experience. With the exception of George Herbert Walker Bush (41st President), there has been no President in recent memory, who came to the office of The President of the United States of America, with any foreign policy experience. Every time a new President came to office, he screwed-up in his first-term but wised-up in the second term. By the time that experience becomes really effective, it is time to leave for the next President. Who is the loser?

Bill Clinton made a huge mistake by not seeking the advice of George H. W. Bush and James A. Baker III, when dealing with the Middle East. The duo had phenomenal influence with Palestinians and the Israelis. We would have had a peace-deal 10 years back. The current President, George W Bush also made a huge mistake by not enlisting the support of President Bill Clinton and some of his advisers like Strobe Talbert to keep the European Union on board when dealing with global issues. Who lost in the end? Are we going to make the same mistake again?

It does not matter who the next President is going to be. What matters is that ‘American Interests’ are preserved and protected, thereby not create additional problems for the world. We do not have the luxury of time with us. We do not have the option to experiment in the first term. You want to pull out of Iraq or stay there for a while longer, is not the problem. The problem is the neglect of the rest of the strategic theaters in US foreign policy. President George W Bush and Robert Gates (current US secretary of Defense) have great relationship with the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries. Please do not screw that up.