Obama's trip abroad
Soft power on the rise in American foreign policy? A few good signs emerged from Obama's trip to Europe
Nakul Shekhawat
Issue date: 4/15/09 Section: Opinion
The contrast to previous years could not have been greater. Addressing a crowd of an estimated 30,000 in Prague, President Obama seemed to have briefly returned to his old campaigning mode. He outlined his plans to combat climate change and reduce the world’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, eliciting enthusiastic applause from people who were not even eligible to vote him into office. A short distance away, protesters objecting to U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic threw effigies into the river. However, even these effigies were not of Obama, but of President Bush and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
But will such international popularity and unwillingness to resist Obamania ever translate into actual results? Obama’s address in Prague was delivered shortly after North Korea’s attention-grabbing, if failed, missile tests over the North Pacific. The president recently repudiated statements by the Israeli foreign minister regarding Israel’s unwillingness to pursue a two-state solution with Palestine. While Obama makes long overdue overtures to an international community still smarting from the blunders of the Bush era, many question whether any such attempts at reconciliation will pay off. Three months into the new administration, however, there are some good signs. A few moments from Obama’s recent foreign excursion serve to highlight ways in which the president’s popularity might eventually be used to generate substantive changes in foreign perception and policy.
While traveling through Great Britain and France, Obama was greeted with the usual throngs of outstretched arms and beaming, camera-wielding fans. Equally noticeable was the lack of public love shown for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Brown is fighting for his political life while trying to resuscitate his unpopular Labor Party and deal with the global financial crisis. The controversial Sarkozy faces increasing opposition from frustrated French workers. His bold antics and tabloid-worthy marriage to singer Carla Bruni have made him famous throughout the world, but Sarkozy’s celebrity pales in comparison to that of the Obamas. Brown, Sarkozy and several other leaders at the G20 Summit in London made it a point to cozy up to the American president, hoping to glean some of his seemingly infinite international popularity and channel it for their own political ends. The hope for the United States, of course, is that the president’s global political capital can be leveraged in order to convince European politicians to follow through on unpopular American proposals, such as increased foreign aid and troop commitment to Afghanistan.
Even more interesting was the reaction Obama received in Turkey. Geographically bridging Europe and the Middle East, the historically secular state contains a majority Muslim population and has recently seen a rise in religious conservatism. While praising Turkey’s proud secular tradition and indicating its usefulness as a model for the rest of the Middle East, Obama made it a point to emphasize to the Turkish Parliament that America was not antagonistic towards Muslims. The president even went so far as to reference details about his own life which had dogged him on the campaign trail. Obama’s Kenyan grandfather was Muslim, while Obama himself spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a country with the largest Muslim population in the world. In bringing up details which any other politician would prefer remain under the radar, Obama seems to be banking on his internationalist image in order to allay Muslim concerns about America’s ability to relate to the Middle East. This was in sharp contrast to President Bush, who repeatedly claimed not to oppose Islam but still managed to use terms such as “crusade” and “Islamic fascists” that implied a struggle between cultures and religions.
After speaking to the parliament, Obama held a town hall-style meeting with Turkish students, during which he emphasized that “young people can be very helpful” in promoting dialogue and understanding because “they can get rid of some of the old baggage and the old suspicions” that perpetuate conflict. Preempting the inevitable critiques of his somewhat idealistic declarations regarding nuclear disarmament in Prague, a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, and the potential for improved U.S.-Iranian relations, the president acknowledged that such issues were challenging. “I’m not naïve. If it was easy, it would have already been done,” he said. “But if we don’t try it, if we don’t reach high, then we won’t make any progress. And I think that there’s a lot of progress that can be made.”
When one member of the audience questioned whether Obama’s policies, especially his decision to slow down troop withdrawal in Iraq, represented a truly meaningful shift from those of his unpopular predecessor, Obama replied that “moving the ship of state is a slow process. States are like big tankers. They’re not like speedboats.” While the tangible results of the president’s efforts remain to be seen, the very fact that Obama was in Istanbul holding the sort of easygoing dialogue he might have held in Indianapolis was indication enough of a bold new course for American foreign policy.
But will such international popularity and unwillingness to resist Obamania ever translate into actual results? Obama’s address in Prague was delivered shortly after North Korea’s attention-grabbing, if failed, missile tests over the North Pacific. The president recently repudiated statements by the Israeli foreign minister regarding Israel’s unwillingness to pursue a two-state solution with Palestine. While Obama makes long overdue overtures to an international community still smarting from the blunders of the Bush era, many question whether any such attempts at reconciliation will pay off. Three months into the new administration, however, there are some good signs. A few moments from Obama’s recent foreign excursion serve to highlight ways in which the president’s popularity might eventually be used to generate substantive changes in foreign perception and policy.
While traveling through Great Britain and France, Obama was greeted with the usual throngs of outstretched arms and beaming, camera-wielding fans. Equally noticeable was the lack of public love shown for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Brown is fighting for his political life while trying to resuscitate his unpopular Labor Party and deal with the global financial crisis. The controversial Sarkozy faces increasing opposition from frustrated French workers. His bold antics and tabloid-worthy marriage to singer Carla Bruni have made him famous throughout the world, but Sarkozy’s celebrity pales in comparison to that of the Obamas. Brown, Sarkozy and several other leaders at the G20 Summit in London made it a point to cozy up to the American president, hoping to glean some of his seemingly infinite international popularity and channel it for their own political ends. The hope for the United States, of course, is that the president’s global political capital can be leveraged in order to convince European politicians to follow through on unpopular American proposals, such as increased foreign aid and troop commitment to Afghanistan.
Even more interesting was the reaction Obama received in Turkey. Geographically bridging Europe and the Middle East, the historically secular state contains a majority Muslim population and has recently seen a rise in religious conservatism. While praising Turkey’s proud secular tradition and indicating its usefulness as a model for the rest of the Middle East, Obama made it a point to emphasize to the Turkish Parliament that America was not antagonistic towards Muslims. The president even went so far as to reference details about his own life which had dogged him on the campaign trail. Obama’s Kenyan grandfather was Muslim, while Obama himself spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a country with the largest Muslim population in the world. In bringing up details which any other politician would prefer remain under the radar, Obama seems to be banking on his internationalist image in order to allay Muslim concerns about America’s ability to relate to the Middle East. This was in sharp contrast to President Bush, who repeatedly claimed not to oppose Islam but still managed to use terms such as “crusade” and “Islamic fascists” that implied a struggle between cultures and religions.
After speaking to the parliament, Obama held a town hall-style meeting with Turkish students, during which he emphasized that “young people can be very helpful” in promoting dialogue and understanding because “they can get rid of some of the old baggage and the old suspicions” that perpetuate conflict. Preempting the inevitable critiques of his somewhat idealistic declarations regarding nuclear disarmament in Prague, a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, and the potential for improved U.S.-Iranian relations, the president acknowledged that such issues were challenging. “I’m not naïve. If it was easy, it would have already been done,” he said. “But if we don’t try it, if we don’t reach high, then we won’t make any progress. And I think that there’s a lot of progress that can be made.”
When one member of the audience questioned whether Obama’s policies, especially his decision to slow down troop withdrawal in Iraq, represented a truly meaningful shift from those of his unpopular predecessor, Obama replied that “moving the ship of state is a slow process. States are like big tankers. They’re not like speedboats.” While the tangible results of the president’s efforts remain to be seen, the very fact that Obama was in Istanbul holding the sort of easygoing dialogue he might have held in Indianapolis was indication enough of a bold new course for American foreign policy.
Be the first to comment on this story