WarSclerotic

Obama at arm’s length, Israel Hayom, Prof. Abraham Ben-Zivi, July 16, 2014

U.S. foreign policy in the early 20th century and the international posture it has assumed some 100 years later are worlds apart. Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has been in decline; its hegemony has been constantly eroding. The U.S. has been losing its dominance on the world stage; no longer can it easily set the international agenda.

After months of mock negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry making every possible mistake on his way to a known failure, one cannot blame him for his lethargic and reluctant stance when it comes to this time-consuming and charged issue, even though the situation on the ground has changed. Under Obama, America no longer considers it necessary to be at the forefront of diplomacy, discarding its role as the chief overseer of strategic policy-making abroad. Therefore one cannot expect it to show leadership in this current crisis, since the violence poses no immediate threat on America’s core interest.

In July 1905, then-U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt brokered the treaty that would eventually end the Russo-Japanese War. The treaty was a culmination of an international conference he had convened in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

By presiding over this mediation effort he signaled that Washington wanted to become a force to be reckoned with on the world stage. America had embarked on a new path that would ultimately have it intervene in World War I under President Woodrow Wilson 12 years later.

U.S. foreign policy in the early 20th century and the international posture it has assumed some 100 years later are worlds apart. Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has been in decline; its hegemony has been constantly eroding. The U.S. has been losing its dominance on the world stage; no longer can it easily set the international agenda.

This has been all the more noticeable over the past week, during which the U.S. has played a minor, very minor, role in the cease-fire negotiations. Cairo has been performing the diplomatic heavy lifting — and even produced a cease-fire that stayed on paper for now — whereas “all the president’s men” have stayed in the shadows. The American public has been, until the past few days, largely uninterested in this recent flare-up, with the administration facing no significant pressure to intervene. But this cannot be the only reason behind Obama’s passivity.

Until not so long ago, U.S. intervention in various conflicts was a function of its role as the world’s shock absorber. It considered itself responsible for making sure things did not boil over or threaten the existing international order. But the Obama White House has viewed U.S. interests abroad through a narrow prism. Accordingly, it has been reluctant to wield its power to safeguard such interests. Moreover Uncle Sam, who has had to grapple with ongoing and ever-increasing defense cuts, could hardly be expected to go out of his way to deal with every regional conflagration. To that one must add the fact that Obama has emerged somewhat bruised by his recent ill-fated attempt to strike a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

After months of mock negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry making every possible mistake on his way to a known failure, one cannot blame him for his lethargic and reluctant stance when it comes to this time-consuming and charged issue, even though the situation on the ground has changed. Under Obama, America no longer considers it necessary to be at the forefront of diplomacy, discarding its role as the chief overseer of strategic policy-making abroad. Therefore one cannot expect it to show leadership in this current crisis, since the violence poses no immediate threat on America’s core interest.

Kerry has not bothered showing up in Cairo this week. A Kerry visit would have been a symbolic show of support for Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi and his mediation efforts. But the fact that he forwent that option says it all; it speaks volumes on the devaluation of the world’s nominal superpower.

This foreign policy inaction is only magnified by its contrast to the intense shuttle diplomacy undertaken by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

He traveled all over the region in 1973-1974, but the U.S. mediation efforts took off only after the Egyptian-Israeli peace process saw dramatic breakthrough in November 1977, when the Egyptian president made a historic visit to Jerusalem. Similarly, the challenges that would surely arise as the two sides try to implement a cease-fire might result in a re-engaged American mediator, who will try to compensate for some of its past lapses, with the help of other international players.

This entry was posted on July 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.