New US diplomacy - Part Two

Barack Obama's Foreign Policy challenges

"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change", said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. The U.S. is willing to speak directly with Iranian leaders if Iran stops its nuclear programme and stop supporting "terrorist" groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. These were exactly the conditions of the Bush Administration, too. Promised changes didn't come yet, and as the situation stands right now, it is not clear whether any changes will come in the near future


By TAMAS TORO
from Timisoara, ROMANIA


Obama Administration's main issue is the war in Afghanistan, that is, fighting against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Since the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the U.S. supply routes crossing Pakistan, were strongly dangered, so alternative routes have to be developed. Two of these routes would cross Russia, or some of the former Soviet Union states where Russia's influence is very strong. Another one, the shortest, would go through Iran. So the Obama's team started talks with Russia and Iran at the same time. If the U.S. wants to pull through, and solve this crisis, compromises have to be done. It is a question whether Obama stand chances to become the big winner of this triangle.

Push the "reset button"

The Security Conference held in Munich brought together many important leaders, but the most important of them all was the U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden, and maybe surprising for some, but yet understandable was the presence of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Formally, Kissinger is not a member of the government, but an adviser of the Obama administration's policy makers. After all, who knows better the Russians than Kissinger? At the Conference Biden talked about two major issues important for the U.S. foreign policy, that is relations with Russia and Iran.

Regarding Russia, Joe Biden said: "we need to hit the "reset button" on U.S.-Russian relations". Naturally the Russians where delighted to hear this. But their attitude changed when realized that hitting the "reset button", does not include NATO expansion, ending the ballistic missile system (BMD) development in Central Europe, or the public acknowledgement of a Russian sphere of influence. "It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances", said Biden. That is every independent state can enter any relationship with the United States, and vice versa. It is obvious that the Bush Administration's commitment towards NATO expansion had not changed a bit. Russian officials became angrier when they heard that the U.S. is continuing the development of BMD systems in Poland. The truth is that Russia is not bothered very much about the BMD system. Russia's bigger problem is the presence of American troops on the land of a former Warsaw Pact state, and that intention of U.S. is to fully equip Poland military.

After Iran's successful satellite launch, it is hard for the U.S. to give up the BMD program. The fact is that the BMD systems in Central Europe have a double role: to intimidate Russia, and defend Europe from an actual missile attack coming from Russia or Iran. It is very important that after the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that if Russia will not help Iran in its nuclear program, and help the U.S. to stop it, then the deployment of BMD in Poland would not be necessary anymore. It is relevant to know that at the end of February Iran announced the plans to "pre-commission" (operational simulation) its nuclear power plant. The leader of Russia's state nuclear company, Sergei Kiriyenko, accepted the invitation. So, putting these two pieces together, Clinton's proposal and Kiriyenko's gesture, it becomes obvious that stopping the deployment of a BMD system in Poland is not enough to stop Russia from cooperating with Iran.

Iran the Arab world's great geopolitical player

On the 5th of March, Hilary Clinton invited Iran to take part in conference on the Afghanistan crises, eventually held on the March the 31st. This is important, because with this gesture the U.S. recognized Iran's influence in the region. Obama's foreign policy makers realized that with Iran on their side, some of the issues which they have to face in the war against the Taliban (and in Iraq) would disappear.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader said: "They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change." The U.S. is willing to speak directly with Iranian leaders if Iran stops its nuclear programme and stop supporting "terrorist" groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. These were exactly the conditions of the Bush Administration, too. Iran's answer is that concessions like these will come after the talks. It is very clear that if the U.S. will continue to aboard its relation with Iran like this, the problem will not be solved. But if Obama wants to keep his promise about getting out of Iraq, then he desperately needs Iran's cooperation. The U.S. tactic to recognize Iran as a key player in Afghanistan and Iraq, in return for logistics and intelligence, proved to be insufficient. Iran will not offer its full cooperation until the U.S. will address more relevant issues, regarding Iran's national security. So, if Obama wants Iran to cooperate, the word "compromise", has to lead him and his foreign policy advisers.

One shouldn't think that the U.S. is the only one who is in a "hard to handle" situation. Iran is considered a traitor by the Arab states, because Iran is thinking about an actual cooperation with the U.S. Before the Summit on Afghanistan, the Arab League Summit in Qatar should take place. Analysts say that Saudi Arabia will take the lead in demonstrating a united Arab front against Iran. So Iran will have to confront the Arab League, too.

Will the changes come?

It is obvious that in the major foreign policy issues the Obama Administration is continuing Bush's policies. It is true that they are very active, but the changes promised didn't come yet, and as the situation stands right now, it is not clear whether any changes will come in the near future. The biggest break from the Bush administration's policies was Hilary Clinton's statement regarding Georgia. She said that the U.S. needs some space in its relations with Georgia. It is understandable, because if they need Russia's cooperation the American foreign policy has to make compromises like this. But Clinton's statement means two other things: Georgia can forget its NATO membership for a while, and the bigger problem of the former Soviet Union state is that it was left to Russia's mercy.

Obama stands in front of some great challenges, and compromises have to be made. The world is waiting with a great interest to see whether Obama and his team will be able to make these compromises, and pull out America of this foreign policy crises.


(Published: 10.04.2009.)