Daily Times

President Barack Obama has been dogged with charges that he is a weak and indecisive leader, especially in foreign and defence affairs. He tends to give the impression, his critics allege, that the US is no longer a strong global leader. He talks tough but is reluctant to take action when required. The most famous example is Syria where Obama laid down a ‘red line’ warning Damascus that its use of chemical weapons would invite US military retaliation but he settled for the Bashar regime, under Russian sponsorship, to get rid of their chemical stockpiles in an agreed timeframe. Another recent example is the events in Ukraine, his critics point out, where Russia occupied Crimea and is said to be encouraging, if not sponsoring, separatism in eastern Ukraine, despite the US warning of consequences.

At the same time, China is seen as doing its own stuff in the South China Sea and East China Sea unmindful of US criticism and commitment to stand by its regional allies, like the Philippines and Japan. To Obama’s critics at home and abroad, the US writ no longer runs like it used to. Indeed, it is being flouted at will. In other words, the US is no longer the ‘indispensable’ nation that many US citizens, including President Obama, still believe to be the case. Indeed, Vali Nasr, once a senior adviser to ambassador Richard Holbrooke whom Obama appointed as his special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan and is now a senior academic, has written a book titled, The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat. While the book is largely a critique of Obama’s policy in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Nasr also makes the broader point that, by signalling a withdrawal from “the exuberant American desire to lead the world”, Obama has enabled China to have strategic advantage for which the US might pay a heavy price in the future. Nasr is not the only critic. Obama faces criticism on this score and generally on foreign affairs from his political opponents as well as some in his own party.

And this continues to rile Obama. He, therefore, took the opportunity of the graduation ceremony at West Point military academy to rebut his critics and unveil his policy and vision for the rest of his term. Obama’s task is rather hard as he is presiding over a declining curve in the US’s power. However, one would not expect him to concede it. The West Point address is, therefore, linguistic juggling, to put the best spin on it. And he does it by emphasising the need and validity of an array of options, diplomatic and others, to deal with issues confronting the US and its allies. Responding to the widely held view about the US’s decline, Obama has this answer: “In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise — who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away — are either misreading history or engaged in partisan [in the US] politics.” And for critics like Vali Nasser calling the US the dispensable nation, Obama reiterates that, “The United States is the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed, and will likely be true for the century to come.” And on another US truism, he said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being.”

Nobody is suggesting that the US is not powerful. It still remains the most powerful country in the world. The suggestion is that, in relative terms, its writ is challenged now and then. Take China’s projection of power in the South China and East China Sea. The US is highly critical of it for destabilising the region and has reaffirmed its treaty commitments to its allies but look back to the mid-1990s when China sought to intimidate the Taiwan militarily from holding its presidential election, which led the US to dispatch its naval carriers, having the desired effect of cooling down China. Now it would seem that China is daring the US but Washington would rather not take the bait.

Obama does make the point though that, “Regional aggression that goes unchecked — in southern Ukraine, the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact on our allies, and could draw in our military.” He has cautioned though, that this “is not to say that every problem has a military solution”. Elaborating, he said, “Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, or levelling with the American people about the sacrifice required.” He was thus telling his critics that his restraint on the use of military power first and foremost, without first exploring other avenues like diplomacy and other non-military means, is not a sign of weakness but a more considered way of conducting US foreign and defence policies. His critics in the US, and they are many, think that by sending these signals he is advertising US weakness and encouraging the US’s enemies to not take it seriously. They point to the forceful assertion by China of its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea, Russia’s encouragement of separatism in Ukraine, consolidation of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria and the Iranian nuclear issue, and to weave it all into a narrative of weak US signals to deal with these challenges head on.

While showing his preference for dealing with multiple global issues through non-military means and by building multilateral coalitions, Obama, however, made it clear that the US would not hesitate to use force, if necessary. But even in these situations, “we still need to ask tough questions about whether our action is proportional, effective and just. International opinion matters.” All this seems eminently sensible, but not to his critics who find his hedging of all sorts as a clear sign of the US’s lack of resolve and weakness for its enemies to exploit.

But what sort of threat does the US face? According to Obama, “for the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to the US at home and abroad remains terrorism. But a strategy that involves invading every country that harbours terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.” And how to deal with it? Obama believes that, “We must shift our counter-terrorism strategy, drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.” Is droning of suspected terrorists in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and possibly others, part of such a collaborative strategy? Obama is silent on this.

Despite Obama’s heroic attempt to portray that, “America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world”, his laboured rebuttal of his critics tends to reinforce this. It is in times like this when the long reigning supremacy of one superpower (the US) is under challenge from another (China) that the world is in great danger of a conflagration from competing and contending power interests. The First World War is a telling example of this.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au