[Park Sang-seek] Implications of Obama’s foreign policy doctrine

At the commencement ceremony at West Point on May 28, President Barack Obama reasserted and further elaborated his foreign policy principles (commonly called the “Obama doctrine”). His speech was important because he used it to attempt a counterattack against his critics, from the left to the right, and at home and abroad. In the process he contrasted traditional American foreign policy doctrines such as idealism, isolationism and unilateralism with his foreign policy principles.

He admits that the existing international order is rapidly changing, as China 

and Russia challenge U.S. global hegemony, terrorist organizations threaten the existing world order, and conflicts within developing nations continue unrelentingly. But he asserts that American global leadership is necessary for American security and world peace because no one else will take on these responsibilities. He knows that the isolationist voice has become stronger since the American attack on Afghanistan and its invasion of Iraq, and the confrontation between isolationists and internationalists has intensified. He argues that if the U.S. ignores important international issues including intra-state conflicts and human rights issues, they will eventually threaten not only world peace but also American security.

His belief in American global leadership is based on American idealism. American idealism justifies American global leadership and American exceptionalism. It justifies American intervention in international and domestic affairs for the protection of human rights and democracy. Being well aware of the opposition from non-Western countries including Russia and China, Obama puts forward the view that human rights and democracy should be protected not only for world peace and prosperity but also for America’s national interest.

According to his definition, America’s national interests consist of core interests and “issues of global concern.” The former include threats to the American people, territory and livelihood, and the security of American allies. The latter include “crises that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction.” In the former situations, the U.S. intervenes militarily and unilaterally if necessary. In the latter cases, it will only intervene militarily along with other nations and use all necessary nonmilitary measures including economic sanctions and diplomacy.

Here he distances himself from his predecessor: In issues of global concern, he will resort to multilateralism rather than unilateralism. This means that he will utilize international organizations and coalitions of the willing in dealing with terrorist organizations, international crises and domestic conflicts involving human rights and democracy.

The main element of the Obama doctrine is its emphasis on soft power. It emphasizes diplomacy and economic sanctions and assistance. And by setting an example, the U.S. can lead the world.

There is a similarity between the Obama doctrine and the Nixon doctrine. Confronted by strong domestic and international opposition and the astronomical economic costs and the loss of American lives, Nixon failed to win the Vietnam War. After announcing the Nixon doctrine in July 1969, he began the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops. The doctrine promised the provision of military protection, nuclear and conventional, to U.S. allies on condition that they assumed the primary responsibility of providing manpower. The main purpose of the doctrine was to avoid direct U.S. military involvement in international conflicts. At the same time, Nixon sought peaceful coexistence with the communist camp and a coalition with China to check the former Soviet Union. By doing so, he tacitly recognized the transformation of the tight bipolar international order into a loose one.

Obama is faced with a similar predicament: strong international opposition to U.S. military intervention in Iraq and other international conflicts, an unprecedented rise of isolationism at home, and the enormous cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world have divided the nation and overburdened American global leadership. An important purpose of the Obama doctrine is to reduce U.S. military involvement in international conflicts, much like the Nixon doctrine. By admitting that the world is rapidly changing and by realizing the difficulties of American leadership, he tacitly recognizes the transformation of a unipolar world into a multipolar world.

The greatest strength of the Obama doctrine lies in its moral code, founded on the universal golden rule: Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. All great religions are founded on this golden rule. Sadly, this universal moral code can hardly apply to nation-states mainly due to the principle of national sovereignty. Another problem with the doctrine is the question of how the U.S. can form an international coalition against the states, terrorist organizations or antidemocratic forces which violate human rights, democracy or international law.

It may gain support from NATO, but not from the BRICS; it may be able to persuade international financial institutions to support its policies, but is not likely to do so with the U.N. If the U.N. refuses to cooperate with the U.S., the U.S. will not act unilaterally but collectively with its allies and friends, according to the Obama doctrine. Only if core national interests are involved will the U.S. act unilaterally. But in actual situations, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between core interests and issues of global concern. This is particularly true in the case of Northeast Asia.

We will closely watch how Obama will implement his doctrine.

By Park Sang-seek

Park Sang-seek is a former rector of Kyung Hee University’s Graduate Institute of Peace Studies and the author of “Globalized Korea and Localized Globe.” ― Ed.