The Bush administration got a lot of things wrong "“ but at least they usually had some idea of who America's adversaries were and who America's friends were. For example, Bush's policy of maintaining the special relationship with Britain was a simple recognition of the close bonds of alliance, friendship and interests that the British and Americans have had since World War I.
In contrast, Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are apparently clueless about some of the most basic aspects of foreign policy: supporting one’s friends and fencing in one's adversaries. The declaration of neutrality on the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands issued by the US State Department is clear proof of the uselessness of the Obama administration.
In the grand scheme of things it makes little sense for America to give moral support to the Kirchner government in Argentina. Kirchner is no friend of the US and Kirchner's government is in deep domestic trouble for its gross mismanagement of the economy and its attempts to suppress the press criticism of the regime at home. One has to wonder what benefit America gets out of hurting Britain on this issue. Perhaps Obama thinks that the more Leftist Latin American regimes will somehow approve of the US. If that is the case, he is truly mistaken, as most Latin American nations dislike the Argentineans, and have little sympathy for the mess Argentina got into over the Falklands.
But this mess is just typical of the drift in US foreign policy "“ if one can say that it even HAS a coherent foreign policy these days. As I said, at the core of the problem is a simple inability to recognise and support our friends over adversaries. In his first year in office Obama made numerous apologies for America's past to the Third World, he effusively greeted the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, he bowed low to the Saudi ruler, and called for a "reset"� of relations with Russia "“ all the while implying that America was at fault for all these problems. At the same time he rudely undermined the security of America's Eastern European allies by cancelling the ballistic missile defence with no notice and no prior discussion, he failed to push for a free trade agreement with Colombia "“ America's strongest ally in South America "“ and he supported Chavez's allies when they tried (luckily unsuccessfully) to unseat a democratic and pro-US government in Honduras.
A big part of the problem is a Secretary of State who is a lightweight as far as foreign policy is concerned. Obama brought Hillary Clinton into the cabinet for domestic policy considerations. He needed to put Mrs Clinton "“ and her husband "“ under tight control. As a powerful senator from New York, she would probably have taken over as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and been able to challenge Obama's "Chicago Gang"� for control of the party.
Despite the acclaim that America's mainstream media has heaped on Hillary Clinton over the years, her foreign policy background and experience before becoming Secretary of State was to accompany her husband on foreign trips and preside over "first wives"� dinners for the spouses of visiting heads of state. One learns a lot about protocol and ceremonies "“ but this is no preparation for the real work of making policy. Clinton has no experience or education in foreign policy. She speaks no foreign languages and has never lived abroad. She lacks the intellectual temperament to be a foreign policy leader. Like Obama, she has long surrounded herself with sycophants.
On assuming office, Obama's vision of foreign policy was simple: he would repudiate past American policies and the whole world would melt before the president's charm. The administration somehow thought that we really didn't have enemies with agendas completely hostile to our own "“ there were just countries that had become offended by US actions and they would happily cooperate with America as soon as the evil Republicans were gone. Well, it hasn't worked "“ and there was no Plan B.
With a president overwhelmed by domestic problems, Hillary Clinton has failed to step in and set a foreign policy vision. Simply put, she does not have the brains or the experience to develop a coherent foreign policy vision for America. This is how we get policy mistakes on issues such as the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Tags: Argentina, Barack Obama, Colombia, Falkland Islands, Hillary Clinton, Hugo Chavez
COMMENTS
Well what does one expect. Zippy gave back the bust of Winston Churchill, so this latest development is not surprising. Lord help us all in the next three years.
Got it in one James
A closet muslim president and a clueless secretary of state.
What else could you expect from Hussein O’Barmy?
Thanks for another interesting blog, colonel. We would have hoped for better from Clinton at least.
James, your analysis is spot on. America’s lack of support over the Falklands is disappointing but we should not let that deter us in standing strong against Argentina’s unjustified position. We should after all remember that America failed to support us in 1982.
http://churchillsboot.blogspot.com/
Could you sit down with Danny Hannan and hold his hand while you explain it to him? Puhleeese!
The fact you’re posting this blog shows how the Bush administration got many things right – or at least the important ones – as people in time begin to understand.
I never thought I’d say this in my wildest dreams—but where can I get one of those”Miss Me Yet?”– t-shirts?
Spot on.
Bush may have had faults, but they are minuscule compared with Obama’s uselessness and lack of reality.
Poor english,deluded and ignorant,America ,britain is just a pet poodle,pampered ,and neglected whenever the master feels it is necessary.
Actually slipped my mind – as it says in the Daily Mail US reaction could also stem from Britsh revelations of torture claims – so tit for tat.
Hillary Clinton is indeed not a good candidate for the State Secretary post. Here in Russia, we are not able to consider what she can offer us with all seriousness. This is because Russian authorities are mindful of that initiative of hers, to issue a medal commemorating so-called American victory in the Cold War. Even if one is to abstract himself from the fact of this being a non-event in the light of CIA agent Bin Laden turning against his masters and toppling successfully the twin towers, surely such a laughable initiative could have been offered by some lesser light, not the player Clinton thought of herself. But now, she is of little use in conducting the American policy in Russia.
Maybe we (NuLabour) should not have released the informantion about Binyamin mohamed?
The Kenyan in the White House getting revenge for Britain hurting the feelings of the Mau Mau ?
Read Full Article »