Obama’s foreign policy
The G20 meeting negotiated foreign policy initiatives as well as financial agreements. Let’s try to peer through the screen of the official language to decipher Obama’s foreign policy.
But first, a little exercise in socialist logic. What should Obama’s foreign policy be, given that he was tutored by Communists and has appointed flaming radicals to his administration? We would expect him to favor the global takeover plans outlined by the Club of Rome calling for the formation of three regional trading groups, Asia, America, and Europe/Middle East. We should expect Obama to pardon illegal aliens, promote regional integration into the North American Union, make peace with Castro, Chavez, and other Latin American Communists. We should expect Obama to undo Bush’s American Empire, especially now that the global economy is weak, Democratic spending is accelerating domestic deficits, tax revenues at all levels are dropping, and unemployment is rising. Obama campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq, so why not accelerate the timetable for troop withdrawal and save the cost of occupation? Why not withdraw from Afghanistan also? The war in Afghanistan looks like an unwinnible quagmire. Pakistan is a shaky mess that is probably beyond fixing, and the Treasury can ill afford more deficit spending on two foreign occupations.
If President Obama is going to make peace with China and Russia, one would expect him to embrace a new global currency, make nice with Iran, stop threatening NATO expansion, and withdraw troops from around the world and close bases. Aligning with the regional agenda, Obama would have to sacrifice Japan to China’s dominance over Asia, let Europe go it alone militarily, and focus on integrating North and South America into a suffocating socialist web of interconnected free trade agreements and bureaucratic responsibilities.
But he isn’t doing any of these things.
Obama wants to keep the influence of the American Empire abroad. He isn’t in any hurry to withdraw troops from Iraq, and he lobbied the G20 for support for escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Europe is tepidly supporting Obama’s war because they don’t want to see the Taliban come to power, but Europe is reluctant to commit troops or money. Obama needs Russia’s help to secure supply lines into Afghanistan. We assume Obama will keep covert operatives in Pakistan and will send more aid to Pakistan to influence events in this volatile region. Pakistan is on the verge of civil war and collapse. Afghanistan promises to become Obama’s biggest foreign policy error if he insists on fighting there.
North Korea’s recent missile test means that North Korea has achieved nuclear delivery capability despite promises and negotiations to the contrary for the past twenty years. Observers from Iran were at the North Korean missile launch site. North Korea may sell this missile technology to Iran. Obama must rely on China to exert influence in North Korea, but North Korea’s recent withdrawal from six-party talks and its promise to restart its nuclear weapons plant mean there isn’t much hope for anyone influencing North Korea. Japan may be forced to go nuclear to defend itself.
Obama doesn’t want to threaten sanctions against North Korea or Iran, and he certainly won’t authorize force against either nation over its nuclear threat. Why then did Obama announce during the G20 that he wanted to rid the world of nuclear arms? So that he could keep his hand in the game and have an excuse to carve out a space for U.S. influence over nuclear issues.
At Prague Obama said, “As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a (European) missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” So Obama isn’t backing out of NATO or his interest in Iran. He is going to engage Russia, Europe, and Iran over Iran’s nuclear issue.
Obama also said, “For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.” This of course is nonsense. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction has worked to keep nuclear weapons from being used since World War II even as they have proliferated. This nonsense statement was simply a signal that Obama intends to engage on nuclear issues, not that the U.S. will proceed toward nuclear disarmament.
With regard to Iran, Obama has changed his requirement that negotiations depend on Iran giving up its enrichment program to simply pushing for talks without preconditions. Obama is hoping for an international inspection agreement that allows inspectors while Iran proceeds with nuclear enrichment. Obama is aware that if Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran will retaliate against the United States. Russia and Venezuela are militarily poised to support such retaliation with recent military agreements and maneuvers in the Caribbean. The emerging question is, what is U.S. policy with regard to Israel? Containment. Israel will not bomb Iran while “talks” are under way. Israel could not stand the international isolation that would result.
We assume that Obama is perpetuating Bush policies so that he won’t appear to be entirely weak and disengaged around the world. We believe Obama’s strategy is to fit the U.S. puzzle piece into the socialist global order by way of cooperative agreements and vague statements, with just enough “initiative” talk to cover his appeasement on all fronts. Next up: Obama soothes the southern Communists. What we can look forward to: failed Obama “initiatives” that accomplish nothing and default to nations pursuing their own interests, accompanied by a soothing syrup of Obamatalk. No big events. A many-centers stage of socialist national assertion before the final takeover agreements are negotiated, probably by Obama’s successor. But there will be lots of changes in administrations around the world before the final deals are struck.
Fox News on North Korea’s missile launch and comments afterward.
The Nation and Sky News on Obama’s meaningless Prague speech.
Right-wing reaction at American Thinker.
Sorry not to have more links. There isn’t any intelligent writing about foreign policy.
About The Author
Comments