Obama's Foreign Policy: Why is Change so hard (original) (raw)
Related papers
Conceptualising change and continuity in US foreign policy
Barack Obama's foreign policy is characterised by both change and continuity. He has not ended the War on Terror, but he has reshaped the conflict, in ways that fit with his personal views on war, the use of force and the American national interest. At times, his values have run up against the realities of occupying the Oval Office (e.g. the failure to close Guantanamo) and, at others, he has adapted his thinking on seeing firsthand the threats the American nation continues to face (e.g. after the Christmas Day bomb plot). The interplay of choice and constraint has featured in many of the chapters in this book. Here, we begin by laying out some of the considerable areas of agreement that they share, despite competing theoretical approaches. Second, we consider how appeals to volition and structural limitation might be reconciled through a structural-relational understanding of structure and agency. Third, we outline one, potentially fruitful, way of conceptualising change and continuity in American foreign policy, which helps to account for Obama's apparently prolonged period of stasis. Fourth, and finally, we turn to consider where Obama's foreign policy will head during his second term in office, based both on the contributions to this volume and the issues his presidency is likely to face in the next four years. Understanding Continuity: The Dynamics of Restraint While the chapters in this book address a wide range of issues, specifically as discussed from a variety of theoretical perspectives and paradigmatic approaches, there remains an overriding commitment to the idea of continuity between the administrations of Bush and Obama. Although certain differences in foreign policy construction can be identified, overall the contributors to this volume highlight clear evidence of similarity between these two presidents. Both in terms of policies enforced (for example, the continued use of drones in the AFPAK region and an on--going commitment to certain aspects of nuclear weapons control strategy) and the narratives constructed to express and institutionalise foreign policy, comparatively little has changed since the days of the Bush administration and the now infamous 'war on terror'. In understanding continuity, this has effectively been framed as a question of agency. Particularly for those who had anticipated wholesale change during Obama's first administration, the failure to bring about any major shift in US foreign policy has been constructed as an issue of how far Obama can be held responsible for his actions. To what extent was he able to impose his ambitions and desires on America's foreign policy? Was he free to construct foreign policy in whatever way he wished? Or were there restraints in place that Obama could never hope to overcome, specifically restraints that can explain the continuity that can be seen between his time in office and that spent by Bush? And if so, to what degree, if any, is Obama constrained by such factors?
The Obama doctrine in foreign policy under scrutiny
Obama’s decision not to hit Assad after the Syrian President used chemical weapons against his own people in August 2013 was a loss of credibility for the whole US foreign policy. Obama, maybe in order to reply to this continuous recrimination, that came from a wide political spectrum, approaching the end of his Presidency gave an interview to The Atlantic editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, where he openly discussed the salient aspects of his foreign policy. This interview is at the core of this paper.
Obama’s Foreign Policy: Is this change we can believe in? ESF Working Paper No. 32, 4 August 2009
2009
or several months following the election of November, 2008, most Americans took great pleasure in their charismatic new president. A series of soaring speeches, frank interviews and pragmatic initiatives made real changes for the better seem possible. Of course other presidents have begun with high hopes, only to be ensnared in multiple dilemmas inherited from their predecessors. By the summer of 2009, Obama's own prospects begin to seem more problematic. Disagreements have surfaced between the Presidency and the Congress and rumours proliferate about splits within the administration's own ranks. Fear grows that the president-attempting simultaneously to overcome a severe financial crisis, address longneglected needs of the domestic economy and win two intractable wars-has overreached himself.
American Foreign and Security Policy under Barack Obama: change and continuity
The main objective of this paper is to analyze how American policies have changed following the inauguration of President Obama. President Obama's foreign policy is determined by several factors, among them the foreign policy legacy and traditions of the Democratic Party including President Obama's closest advisors and members of his cabinet (some of them were high-ranking officials of the Clinton administrations), his own foreign policy program presented during the election campaign (which is to a some extent based on his " personal life-story ") developments and reality of the global strategic environment, domestic and international perceptions of American foreign policy and of course, long-term strategic interests of the United States.
Analyzing President Obama's foreign policy and its global impact is no easy task. The early presidency of Obama has been marked by vicious attacks from the right, deep disappointment from the left, and something like indifference from the international community. This is understandable when the main argument is entertained: the expectations of Obama's global positions have not met reality mainly because they are more closely aligned with a cautious and considered 'true' conservatism, something no side (left, right, international) anticipated. The consequences of this becomes more than just about election results but has significant potential influence on the fundamental debates between soft and hard power. . He is the author of two well-received books and over half a dozen articles on the problems in promoting democracy and fighting terrorism. He has worked on projects involving the intelligence communities from over a dozen countries and actively seeks to promote leadership cooperation across these communities. Barack Obama…will restore America's standing in the world by providing a new American leadership to meet the challenges of a new century…Barack Obama…will reverse this perception of American arrogance and obstructionism. 1 Analyzing President Obama's foreign policy, or rather, analyzing the intellectual and positional evolution of his global positions is no easy task. It would not be hyperbole to say Obama came into office with the hopes and dreams of millions of Democrats and perhaps even the muted optimism of many moderate Republicans. In other words, hitting everything right on the mark was likely impossible. This only makes the present analysis more interesting, for the early presidency of Obama has been marked by vicious attacks from the right, deep disappointment from the left and relative indifference from the international community. This negativity is more understandable when the main argument here is entertained: expectations have not been met in terms of foreign policy because Obama's positions have more closely aligned with what some might call 'true' conservatism, something no side foresaw in 2008.
Obama and the Middle East: Continuity and Change in US Foreign Policy?
Almost six years after all the rhetorical flourishes and promises that accompanied his entry into office, the fog has been lifted, and it is now possible to assess his foreign policy record clearly. Two broad questions are explored in my recent book called Obama and the Middle East: The End of America's Moment? in evaluating the Obama foreign policy approach.
Obama nation?: US foreign policy one year on
LSE IDEAS, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2010
To mark one year since the inauguration of President Barack Obama, this Special Report brings together distinguished authors from the LSE and beyond to discuss how successfully the United States has reconfigured its foreign policy in the past year. Obama came to office facing a daunting array of specific policy challenges which were compounded by the twin overriding objectives to repudiate the Bush years and restore American legitimacy whilst focusing on economic renewal in the wake of the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. The picture of his first year in office is one of mixed success but of striking ambition
Social Sciences , 2023
This article examines the dialectical relationship between continuity and change in the foreign policy of the United States, a hegemonic power. The article begins by exploring the agent–structure problem and the factors that affect changes in foreign policy and the legitimacy of hegemony. It compares the hegemonic leadership styles of three former United States Presidents: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. The article aims to contrast the foreign policy approaches of the three presidents and present two main arguments. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of foreign policy, it is imperative to analyse dynamic components such as contextual factors and leadership. This includes the leaders’ worldviews and their ability to adapt to unanticipated crises. The gradual decline of the United States’ hegemony in the international order can be attributed to structural transformations within the international order and the erosion of its social capital and its role as hegemon. Yet, the leadership styles adopted by American presidents have a significant impact on the erosion of the nation’s hegemonic leadership.
Foreign Policy in the real world: the Obama years
Joseph Marques, 2020
This review essay examines three books written by senior former Obama administration members - Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Ben Rhodes. It highlights how the authors manage to present many of the Obama administration's internal debates, as well as reveal the limitations of its foreign policy.