[THS] Dilip Hiro: The American Century Is So Over

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25556.htm



    The American Century Is So Over

    Obama’s Rudderless Foreign Policy Underscores America’s Waning Power

    By Dilip Hiro

    May 27, 2010 "Tom Dispatch" -- Irrespective of their politics, flawed leaders share
a common trait. They generally remain remarkably oblivious to the harm they do to
the nation they lead. George W. Bush is a salient recent example, as is former British
Prime Minister Tony Blair. When it comes to foreign policy, we are now witnessing a
similar phenomenon at the Obama White House.

    Here is the Obama pattern: Choose a foreign leader to pressure.  Threaten him
with dire consequences if he does not bend to Washington’s will. When he refuses to
submit and instead responds vigorously, back off quickly and overcompensate for
failure by switching into a placatory mode.

    In his first year-plus in office, Barack Obama has provided us with enough
examples to summarize his leadership style. The American president fails to
objectively evaluate the strength of the cards that a targeted leader holds and his
resolve to play them.

    Obama’s propensity to retreat at the first sign of resistance shows that he lacks
both guts and the strong convictions that are essential elements distinguishing
statesmen from politicians. By pursuing a rudderless course in his foreign policy, by
flip-flopping in his approach to other leaders, he is also inadvertently furnishing hard
evidence to those who argue that American power is on the decline -- and that the
downward slide of the globe’s former “sole superpower” is irreversible.

    Those who have refused to buckle under Obama’s initial threats and hardball
tactics (and so the impact of American power) include not just the presidents of
China, a first-tier mega-nation, and Brazil, a rising major power, but also the leaders
of Israel, a regional power heavily dependent on Washington for its sustenance, and
Afghanistan, a client state -- not to mention the military junta of Honduras, a minor
entity, which stood up to the Obama administration as if it were the Politburo of
former Soviet Union.

    Flip-Flop on Honduras

    By overthrowing the civilian government of President Manuel Zelaya in June 2009,
the Honduran generals acquired the odious distinction of carrying out the first
military coup in Central America in the post-Cold War era. What drove them to it? The
precipitating factor was Zelaya’s decision to have a non-binding survey on holding a
referendum that November about convening a Constituent Assembly to redraft the
constitution.

    Denouncing the coup as a “terrible precedent” for the region and demanding its
reversal, President Obama initially insisted: “We do not want to go back to a dark
past. We always want to stand with democracy.”

    Those words should have been followed by deeds like recalling his ambassador in
Tegucigalpa (just as Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did)
and an immediate suspension of the American aid on which the country depends.
Instead, what followed was a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the
administration would not formally designate the ouster as a military coup “for now” --
even though the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the
European Union had already done so.

    This backtracking encouraged the Honduran generals and their Republican
supporters in Congress. They began to stonewall, while a top notch public relations
firm in Washington, hired by the de facto government of the military’s puppet
president Roberto Micheletti, went to work.

    These moves proved enough to weaken the “democratic” resolve of a president
who makes lofty speeches, but lacks strong convictions when it comes to foreign
policy. Secretary of State Clinton then began talking of reconciling the ousted
president and the Micheletti government, treating the legitimate and illegitimate
camps as equals.

    Having realized that a hard line stance vis-à-vis Washington was paying dividends,
the Honduran generals remained unbending. Only when Clinton insisted that the
State Department would not recognize the November presidential election result
because of doubts about it being free, fair, and transparent did they agree to a
compromise a month before the poll. They would let Zelaya return to the presidential
palace to finish his term in office.

    That was when rightwing Republican Senator Jim DeMint, a fanatical supporter of
the Honduran generals, swung into action. He would give Republican consent to
White House nominees for important posts in Latin America only if Clinton agreed to
recognize the election results, irrespective of what happened to Zelaya. Clinton
buckled.

    As a result, Obama became one of only two leaders -- the other being Panama’s
president -- in the 34-member Organization of American States to lend his support to
the Honduran presidential poll. What probably appeared as a routine trade-off in
domestic politics on Capitol Hill was seen by the international community as a
humiliating retreat by Obama when challenged by a group of Honduran generals.
Other leaders undoubtedly took note.

    A far more dramatic reversal awaited Obama when he locked horns with Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Wily Netanyahu Trumps Naïve Obama

    On taking office, the Obama White House announced with much fanfare that it
would take on the intractable Israeli-Palestinian dispute right away. On examining the
2003 “road map” to peace backed by the United Nations, the United States, Russia,
and the European Union, it discovered Israel’s promise to cease all settlement-
building activity.

    In his first meeting with Netanyahu in mid-May 2009, Obama demanded a halt to
the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem,
already housing nearly 500,000 Jews.  He argued that they were a major obstacle to
the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Netanyahu balked -- and
changed tack by stressing the existential threat that Iran’s nuclear program posed to
Israel.

    Obama slipped into the Israeli leader’s trap.  At their joint press conference, he
linked the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks with the Iranian nuclear threat. Then, to
Netanyahu’s delight, he gave Tehran “until the end of the year” to respond to his
diplomatic overtures. In this way, the wily prime minister got the American president
to accept his linkage of two unrelated issues while offering nothing in return.

    Later, Netanyahu would differentiate between the ongoing expansion of present
Jewish settlements and the creation of new ones, with no compromise on the former.
He would also draw a clear distinction between the West Bank and East Jerusalem
which, he would insist, was an integral part of the “indivisible, eternal capital of
Israel,” and therefore exempt from any restrictions on Jewish settlements.

    Reflecting the Obama administration’s style, Clinton offered a strong verbal
riposte: “No exceptions to Israeli settlement freeze”. These would prove empty words
that changed nothing on the ground.

    When Netanyahu publicly rejected Obama’s demand for a halt to settlement
construction in the West Bank, Obama raised the stakes, suggesting that Israeli
intransigence endangered American security.

    On October 15th, after much back-channel communication between the two
governments, Netanyahu announced that he had terminated the settlements talks
with Washington. Having said this, he offered to curb some settlement construction
during a later meeting with Clinton. This won him the secretary of state’s effusive
praise for an “unprecedented” gesture, and a call for the unconditional resumption of
the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.

    The Palestinians were flabbergasted by this American volte-face. “I believe that
the U.S. condones continued settlement expansion,” said stunned Palestinian
government spokesman Ghassan Khatib. “Negotiations are about ending the
occupation and settlement expansion is about entrenching the occupation.”

    In December, Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month moratorium on settlement
building, but only after his government had given permission for the construction of
3,000 new apartments in the occupied West Bank. Sticking to their original position,
the Palestinians refused to revive peace talks until there was a total freeze on
settlement activity.

    On March 9, 2010, just as Vice-President Joe Biden arrived in Jerusalem as part of
Washington’s campaign to kick-start the peace process, the Israeli authorities
announced the approval of yet more building -- 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem.
This audacious move, meant to underline Israel’s defiance of Washington, left Biden
-- as well as Obama -- fuming.

    With the House of Representatives adopting his health reform bill on March 24th,
Obama was on a domestic roll when he met Netanyahu in Washington the next day.
He reportedly laid out three conditions for defusing the crisis: an extension of the
freeze on Jewish settlement expansion beyond September 2010; an end to further
Jewish settlement projects in East Jerusalem; and withdrawal of the Israeli forces to
the positions held before the Second Intifada in September 2000. He then left
Netanyahu at the White House to consult with his advisers and get back to him if
“there is anything new.” Again, however, as with the Honduran generals Obama’s
tough talk remained just that: talk.

    The purpose of all this activity was to get the Palestinians to resume peace
negotiations with Israel, which they had broken off when that country attacked the
Gaza Strip in December 2008. Netanyahu was prepared to talk as long as no
preconditions were set by the Palestinians.

    In the end, he got what he wanted. He met neither Palestinian preconditions nor
those of the Obama administration. Simply put, it was Obama who bent to
Netanyahu’s will. The tail wagged the dog.

    The hapless officials of the Palestinian Authority read the writing on the wall. After
some ritual huffing and puffing, they agreed to participate in “proximity talks” with
the Netanyahu government in which Washington’s Middle East envoy, George
Mitchell, would shuttle back and forth between the two sides. These started on May
9th. Over the next four months, Mitchell’s tough task will be to try to narrow the
yawning differences on the terms of Palestinian statehood -- when both sides now
know that Obama will shy away from pressuring Israel where it hurts.

    Spat With China, Then a Sudden Thaw

    Obama’s problems with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) began in November
2009 when, to his disappointment, the Chinese government failed to accord him the
royal treatment he had expected on his first visit to the country.

    Washington-Beijing relations cooled further when the Obama administration
greenlighted the sale of $6.4 billion worth of advanced weaponry to Taiwan,
including anti-missile missiles, and Obama met the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual
leader, at the White House. The PRC regards Taiwan as a breakaway province and
Tibet as an integral part of the republic.

    Senior U.S. officials described the moves as part of Obama’s concerted drive to
“push back” at China which, in his view, was punching above its weight. Along with
these moves went unrelenting pressure on Beijing, in private and in public, to revalue
its currency, the yuan.  The administration repeatedly highlighted a legal provision
requiring the Treasury Department to report twice a year on any country that has
been manipulating the rate of exchange between its currency and the American
dollar to gain unfair advantage in international trade. That the next due date for such
a report -- a preamble to possible sanctions -- was April 15th was repeated by U.S.
officials ad nauseam.

    In mid-April, Obama was convening an international summit on nuclear security in
Washington.  He was eager to have as many heads of state as possible attend. At the
very least, he wanted the leaders of the four nuclear powers with U.N. Security
Council vetoes -- Britain, France, Russia, and China -- present.

    That provided Chinese President Hu Jintao with a powerful card to play at a
moment when a White House threat to name his country as a currency manipulator
hung over his head. He refused to attend the Washington nuclear summit. Obama
blinked. He postponed the Treasury Department’s judgment day. In return, Hu came
and met Obama at the White House.

    That tensions existed between Beijing and Washington did not surprise China’s
leaders, a collective of hard-nosed realists.  Their attitude was reflected in an editorial
in the official newspaper, the China Daily, soon after Obama’s inauguration. “U.S.
leaders have never been shy about talking about their country’s ambition,” it said.
“For them, it is divinely granted destiny no matter what other nations think.” The
editorial went on to predict that “Obama’s defense of U.S. interests will inevitably
clash with those of other nations.”  And so they have, repeatedly.

    Such realism contrasted starkly with the mood prevalent at the White House where
it was naively believed that a few well scripted speeches in foreign capitals by the
eloquent new president would restore U.S. prestige left in tatters by George W.
Bush’s policies. What the president and his coterie seem not to have noticed,
however, was an important Pew Research Center poll. It showed that, following
Obama’s public diplomacy campaign, while the image of the U.S. had indeed risen
sharply in Europe, Mexico, and Brazil, any improvement was minor in India and
China, marginal in the Arab Middle East, and nonexistent in Russia, Pakistan, and
Turkey.

    Stuck in its self-congratulatory mode, the Obama team paid scant attention to the
full range of options that other powers had for retaliating to its pressure. For
instance, it did not foresee Beijing threatening sanctions against major American
companies supplying weapons to Taiwan, nor did it anticipate the stiff resistance the
PRC would offer to revaluing the yuan.

    Some attributed Beijing’s behavior to a rising Chinese nationalism and the fears of
its leaders that bending under pressure from “foreigners” would play poorly at home.
But the real reasons for Chinese resistance had more to do with hard economics than
popular sentiment. In the wake of the Great Recession of 2008-09, symbolized by the
collapse of the gigantic Lehman Brothers investment bank, China’s leaders noted
tectonic changes occurring in the international economic balance of power -- at the
expense of the hitherto “sole superpower."

    While the U.S. and European economies contracted, Beijing quickly adopted
policies aimed at boosting domestic demand and infrastructure investment.  This
resulted in impressive expansion: 9% growth in the gross domestic product in 2009
with a prediction of 12% in the current year. This led Goldman Sachs’ analysts to
advance their forecast of the year when China would become the globe’s number
one economy from 2050 to 2027.

    For the first time since World War II, it was not the United States that pulled the
rest of the world out of negative growth, but China. The U.S. has emerged from the
financial carnage as the most heavily indebted nation on Earth, and China as its
leading creditor with an unprecedented $2.4 trillion in foreign reserves.

    Its cash-rich corporations are now buying companies and future natural resources
from Australia to Peru, Canada to Afghanistan where, last year, the Congjiang Copper
Group, a Chinese corporation, offered $3.4 billion -- $1 billion more than the highest
bid by a Western metallurgy company -- to secure the right to mine copper from one
of the richest deposits on the planet.

    Karzai the Menace Becomes Karzai the Indispensable

    On assuming the presidency, Obama made no secret of his dislike for his Afghan
counterpart, Hamid Karzai. To circumvent his central government’s pervasive
corruption, senior American officials came up with the idea of dealing directly with
Afghan provincial and district governors. In the presidential election of August 2009,
their preference for Abdullah Abdullah, a serious rival to Karzai, was widely known.

    When Karzai resorted to massive vote rigging to ensure his reelection and turned a
deaf ear to Washington’s exhortations to clean up his administration, Obama decided
to use a stick to bring Washington’s latest client regime in line. In a dramatic gesture,
he undertook an air journey of 26 hours -- from Washington to Kabul -- over the last
weekend in March to deliver a 26-minute lecture to Karzai on the corruption and
administrative ineptitude of his government. The Afghan leader had few options but
to listen in stony silence.

    When, however, Karzai read a news story in which an unnamed senior American
military official suggested that his younger half-brother, Ahmed Wali, the power
broker in the southern province of Kandahar, deserved to be put on the Pentagon’s
current list of drug barons to be killed or captured, his patience snapped.

    An incensed Afghan president responded by claiming that the U.S. was
deliberately intensifying and widening the war in Afghanistan in order to stay in the
region and dominate it.  He added that, if Washington’s pressure continued, he
might join the Taliban. (He had, in fact, been a significant fundraiser for the Taliban
after they captured Kabul in September 1996.)

    Obama reacted as he had done in the past. When facing a serious challenge, he
retreated.  From being a stick wielder he morphed into a carrier of carrots during a
Karzai visit to Washington early this month (that, in March, administration officials
were threatening to postpone indefinitely).

    The high point of the wooing of Karzai -- worthy of being included in a modern
version of Alice in Wonderland -- was a dinner Vice-President Joe Biden gave for the
Afghan dignitary at his residence.  At the very least Karzai must have been bemused.
In February, Biden had staged a dramatic walk-out halfway through a dinner at the
Afghan president’s palace after Karzai denied that his government was corrupt or
that, if it was, he was at fault.

    Despite the Obama administration’s “red carpet treatment” and “charm offensive,”
Karzai was boldly honest at a joint press conference with Obama when he described
Iran as “our bother country, our friend.”

    The same sentiments would soon be expressed by another leader -- in Brazil.

    President da Silva Thumbs His Nose at Obama

    Ever since assuming the presidency of Brazil in 2003, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has,
when necessary, not hesitated to challenge U.S. policy moves. He has clashed with
Washington on world trade (the Doha round), global warming, and continuing U.S.
sanctions against Cuba.

    In December 2008, he chaired a meeting of 31 Latin American and Caribbean
countries, which excluded the United States, at the Brazilian tourist resort of Sauipe.
The next month, instead of going to the World Economic Forum at Davos,
Switzerland, da Silva attended the Eighth World Social Forum at Belem at the mouth
of the Amazon River.

    He was critical of the way Obama compromised democracy in Honduras, and,
despite the Obama administration’s dismay and opposition, he invited Iranian
president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Brasilia in November 2009 for talks on the
Iranian nuclear program, his first attempt at high-profile international diplomacy. (A
week earlier he had warmly received Israeli president Shimon Peres in the Brazilian
capital.)  Six months later, he paid a return visit to Tehran -- and made history, much
to the chagrin of Washington.

    Acting in tandem with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, da Silva
revived a putative October 2009 nuclear agreement and brokered an unexpected
deal with Ahmadinejad.  Iran agreed to ship 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched
uranium to Turkey; in return, Russia and France would provide 120 kilograms of 20%
enriched uranium for a medical research reactor in Tehran.

    Taken by surprise and rattled by the success of Brazil and Turkey in the face of
American disapproval, the Obama administration reverted to the stance of the Bush
White House and demanded that Iran suspend its program to enrich nuclear fuel. It
then moved to push an agreement on further U.N. sanctions against Iran, as if the
Brazilians and Turks had accomplished nothing.

    This refusal to register reality was myopic at best. The blinkered view of the
present White House ignores salient global facts. The influence of mid-level powers
on the world stage is on the rise. Their leaders feel -- rightly -- that they can ignore
or bypass the Obama administration’s demands. And, on the positive side, they can
come together on certain international issues and take diplomatic initiatives of their
own with a fair chance of success.

    By now, from Afghanistan to Honduras, Brazil to China, global leaders large and
small increasingly sense that the Obama administration’s bark is worse than its bite,
and though the U.S. remains a major power, it is no longer the determinative one.
The waning of the truncated American Century is by now irreversible.

    Dilip Hiro is the author of 32 books, the latest being After Empire: The Birth of A
Multipolar World (Nation Books).

    Copyright 2010 Dilip Hiro