When it comes to foreign policy, the Obama Doctrine seems to be guided by one theme- failure.
President Obama’s hemorrhaging foreign policy is creating an increasingly embarrassing mess at the United Nations. A four-week session of the U.N.’s top human rights body, the Human Rights Council, ended in Geneva on March 28, 2014, with a series of humiliating defeats for the president’s calling card of indiscriminate engagement.
Joining, and legitimizing, a U.N. Human Rights Council with no human rights conditions for membership was one of President Obama’s first foreign policy moves. Hence, the United States was elected to the Council in 2009, re-elected in 2013, and currently sits alongside such human rights luminaries as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
This session took place against the backdrop of Russia’s aggressive takeover of parts of a sovereign country, in gross violation of the human rights of Ukrainians. And yet the Council itself couldn’t manage a peep.
A U.S.-backed resolution at the U.N. General Assembly adopted on March 27, 2014, criticized Russia, but failed to take what would have been the truly isolating step of removing Russia from the Council.
So what did the Council do while it was in session?
For the first time, the Council adopted a resolution on “remotely piloted aircraft or drones” – including those which are unarmed. Creatively, the resolution “expresses concern” that such aircraft “undermine religious and cultural practices,” thus transforming perpetrators into victims.
The Obama administration overwhelmingly lost the vote on this resolution, 27 in favor to 6 against.
The European Union was split, with Germany insulting President Obama by merely abstaining.
Under Obama, the United States has suffered some real reputational damage. I say that as someone who sympathizes with many of Obama’s foreign policy goals. This damage, unfortunately, has largely been self-inflicted by an administration that focuses too much on short-term messaging. At key turning points — in Egypt and Libya during the Arab Spring, in Syria, in Ukraine and, yes, in Benghazi — the administration was driven by messaging priorities rather than sound, interests-based policy.
SECOND terms are often a time when presidents, balked by domestic opposition, turn to the world stage to secure their legacy — opening doors to China, closing out the Cold War, chasing Middle Eastern peace.
But the global stage hasn’t been a second-term refuge for President Obama; it’s been an arena of setbacks, crises and defeats. His foreign policy looked modestly successful when he was running for re-election. Now it stinks of failure.
We can toss another failure shrimp on the Barbie.
September 12, 2012:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTwGq6wQ2GY[/youtube]
November 14, 2012
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRxW6DrfmRU[/youtube]
March 20, 2013
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipf9rAJzJ80[/youtube]
Critics of the president’s feeble Iran policy have known all along this was coming. If the report in the New York Times is accurate, the president is about to countenance a nuclear-armed Iran. The administration doesn’t put it that way, and the Times is compliant enough not to mention it directly, but that is precisely what is entailed: “On the eve of a new round of talks between world powers and Iran, a senior Obama administration official said Wednesday that the United States was prepared to offer Iran limited relief from economic sanctions if Tehran agreed to halt its nuclear program and reversed part of it.” The planned “relief” is to last six months, much longer than some experts believe is needed for Iran to go nuclear.
So the Iranians, if Obama gets his way, will have achieved what they want — relief from sanctions and months to complete what some experts say will take only weeks: the achievement of a nuclear weapons capability. The Times buried the lede, but did allow, “Time is of the essence, nuclear experts have said, because Iran’s nuclear program has advanced to the point where it could quickly produce enough enriched material for a nuclear device.” A conservative foreign policy expert who has warned against the impending nuclear breakout by Iran retorted, “So the Obama administration is conspiring with Tehran to stop Congress from imposing sanctions on Iran.”
The Iranians have learned something in the last six years:
All Barack Obama statements come with an expiration date. All of them.
Things don’t look much better for the next two years:
The New York Times editorial board, often supportive of the White House, wrote that his address “did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.”
Obama “provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years,” the Times wrote, “and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world.”
The Times also continued its criticism of Obama on transparency on targeted killings and intelligence, saying his call for more transparency was “ludicrous” given the administration’s unwillingness to give “even minimal disclosures.”
The potential damage Obama can do to this country in the next two years is frightening.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.