{"id":30395,"date":"2017-02-02T14:30:40","date_gmt":"2017-02-02T03:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=30395"},"modified":"2017-02-02T14:18:14","modified_gmt":"2017-02-02T03:18:14","slug":"obamas-foreign-policy-legacy-three-quotes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/obamas-foreign-policy-legacy-three-quotes\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama\u2019s foreign policy legacy in three quotes"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
After the Bush administration, many believed that President Obama would bring stability to the global order with a fusion of eloquent rhetoric, a preference for multilateralism and a cautious approach to exercising the politico-military capabilities of the world\u2019s sole superpower. For little more than that promise, it seems, Obama would be awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize<\/a>. Fast-forward to the end of the Obama era and the global security environment is more volatile than it has been in decades: Russian influence is surging in the Middle East and Europe, wars ravage civilian populations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, waves of migrants are straining EU unity, while the jihadist threat has metastasised. It\u2019s a legacy, fairly or otherwise, that may come to be defined by three quotes.<\/p>\n The red line:<\/strong> The war in Syria represents one of the greatest humanitarian tragedies in history; a holocaust that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. In response to concerns that the Assad regime may be using chemical weapons, Obama<\/a> said the following on 20 August 2012:<\/p>\n \u2018We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized\u2026. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that\u2019s a red line for us and that there will be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In subsequent defences of that statement, Obama would highlight that the international community had in fact drawn that red line by ratifying the chemical weapons convention<\/a>. And so that quote has come to symbolise the West\u2019s failure to respond decisively to Assad\u2019s crimes. History<\/a> has demonstrated that rhetoric without action affords adversaries valuable opportunities to exacerbate one\u2019s perceived \u2018say-do\u2019 gap while minimising their own. It\u2019s a dynamic that has occurred regularly in Syria to the advantage of actors like Russia, Iran and the Assad regime.<\/p>\n The disparity between an actor\u2019s words and actions also provides fertile grounds for disillusionment, distrust and anger to foment among potential allies. Nowhere was the \u2018say-do gap\u2019 felt more profoundly than by Syrians themselves. Syrian rebel forces planned and prepared for more active western involvement after Obama\u2019s red-line statement. When support didn\u2019t follow, many felt deeply betrayed, not just by the United States or the West but the world more broadly. As one interviewee stated<\/a> to me in 2015: \u2018Obama can cover the whole world in red lines. Who cares? We are dying here. And Ban Ki-moon? He is \u201cworried\u201d all the time. Ban Ki-Moon is worried, Obama is drawing red lines, everybody is talking and nobody is doing anything.\u2019 It\u2019s perhaps unsurprising that when I asked about how jihadist groups were perceived by the population I was told: \u2018When America blacklists, the Syrian people [are starting to] whitelist.\u2019<\/p>\n The Russian threat:<\/strong> The second quote comes from the third Presidential debate between President Obama and then-Governor Mitt Romney on 22 October 2012. In response to Romney describing Russia as \u2018our number 1 geopolitical foe\u2019, Obama<\/a> stated, in what appeared to be a pre-prepared \u201czinger\u201d: \u2018The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War\u2019s been over for 20 years.\u2019<\/p>\n It\u2019s a statement that reflects a perception of the Russian threat as overblown, a sentiment that has been expressed on other occasions. For instance, Russia\u2019s involvement in the Syrian conflict, which has since proven to be decisive in shifting momentum back to the Assad regime, was largely dismissed by Obama in December 2015 as a strategic misstep by Putin<\/a>. A year later Obama described Russia as \u2018a smaller country\u2026 a weaker country\u2019<\/a> that \u2018can\u2019t change us or significantly weaken us\u2019<\/a> in response to reports of election-related hacking. While Obama\u2019s descriptions of Russia are accurate, they perhaps reflect a misreading of the nature <\/em>of the Russian threat.<\/p>\n