The Obama Foreign Policy Analysis File

February 17, 2013

>> The nomination of Chuck Hagel as the to be secretary of defence could seem for many as a strange choice surrounded by unnecessary controversy. A second term of the US presidency is characterised by the fact that the President must no longer search for re-election. He can concentrate on his legacy based on his real beliefs and motivations. Obamas choice of Hagel combined with the nomination of John Kerry gives a pretty good picture of the foreign policy for the next 4 years and could dramatically change the position of the US on the world stage. ADL and AJC, two rather centrist Jewish groups, called for further review of Chuck Hagels record in light of an account of a 2007 speech given at Rutgers University in which he allegedly said the State Department acted as an adjunct of Israels foreign ministry. At that time Hagel considered to run for president as a Republican senator from Nebraska. The American Jewish Committee released a statement saying in light of his complex record in the Senate and controversial statements he has made since his public service on strategic and political affairs notably grappling with the range of pressing Middle East issues AJC believes that further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken. Beyond the controversy which profits the Republicans wishing to retaliate against any move of the president, there is a profound sense of shifting priorities based on what seems a isolationist policy pursued by Obama with far reaching consequences not only for the Middle East, but for the entire world order. The nomination of Hagel for the secretary of defense function and Brennan for the CIA, enforces the opinion that President Obama puts all his focus on domestic issues. Having authorized the extraction of shale gas notwithstanding criticism from ecological groups, it appeared clear that economic independence became the priority of the second term of President Barack Obama. Without the pressure for a re-election campaign, Obama has the freedom to change forever the orientation of the country which stayed in fact the only superpower in what some countries liked to consider a multi-polar world. Without the need to protect the sources for oil, the US can focus on its domestic issues. The choice for Hagel is not one against Israel, it is a choice of withdrawal from the overall international military scene, if not the political one. Hagels longtime position I am a US senator, not an Israeli one, has been one of diminishing US military involvement abroad.

Beyond the controversy which profits the Republicans wishing to retaliate against any move of the president, there is a profound sense of shifting priorities based on what seems a isolationist policy pursued by Obama with far reaching consequences not only for the Middle East, but for the entire world order.

The choice of John Kerry as the new Secretary of State fits perfectly in this picture. Kerry is a pragmatical politician, ready to make agreements with dictators as well as their opposition. Kerry was not opposed to a certain engagement with Syrian President Assad and will probably do the same with his opposition even if their intentions will be disputable, and will try to open a dialogue with Iran. Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz, one of the heirs of the Heinz Ketchup empire just bought up by Warren Buffet, a strong supported of President Obama who decorated Buffet with the Medal of Freedom. In taking over Heinz Co for $23.3 billion, the largest deal ever in the food industry, Buffett stressed that expansion of the company must be searched abroad, in the newly developed countries and particularly China. China has a long term view on all its policies and resist military interventions or interference in other states internal affairs. Its biggest danger is social unrest due to economic inequalities. China focuses on maintaining its currency low for export sake, secure energy resources and increase domestic spending. Could it be that under the influence of Buffet and Chinas economic success, Obama tries to emulate Chinas policies by adapting them to the US reality? Tolerating at the same time political systems as North Korea and Iran? The United States played the international policeman since the Second World War. This global outreach intensified after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US depended on oil and had to maintain a strong presence and influence in the Middle East. The economic crisis of 2008 made it clear that domestic spending and local policies influenced election results and economic welfare more than international military involvement. The discovery of shale gas in the US is a game changer, not only for the US, but for the entire world. An energy independent US does not need to protect suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and can even reduce support for Israel in order to diminish military presence worldwide.

Chuck Hagel in front of senate commission

Warren Buffett decorated by medal of freedom

John Kerry and John Brennan

Obama favours a policy of negotiations and economic alliances in the hope that the consequences of terrorism and actions of rogue states can be contained through surgical interventions.
It can permit itself to withdraw inside its borders and leave international conflicts to its initial actors. Obamas policy to concentrate on domestic issues and reduce international interference is a long term strategy which his successors will continue in a stronger or weaker form depending on which party they represent, but without a drastic change. The US does not need anymore the outside world as much as before and the rest of the world will have to cope without the US. Obama favours a policy of negotiations and economic alliances in the hope that the consequences of terrorism and actions of rogue states can be contained through surgical interventions. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement signed on February 13 with the European Union, underlines the trading priorities of Obamas administration. The fact that this agreement circumvents the wish of US long-time ally Britain to negotiate country by country, reveals a further shift in policies where established alliances have less weight than global considerations. Israel is loosing a strong ally and will need to act more strongly to lower their opponents expectations or search new allies like China or Russia. The faster they do so, the more chances they put on their side. The choice for Brennan stresses the importance Obama maintains for US security. Brennan favours any tactics, especially targeting killings of terrorists, to protect the US against foreign or domestic dangers. The use of harsh interrogation techniques and drones seem to be his favourite tools. Taking Hagel and Brennan together, one can conclude that the US sets course to international isolation in the hope of resolving its major issue: the fiscal imbalance.

U.S. drone

But there is a strategic mistake in this reasoning. The US has the advantage to be able to print as much of its money as it wishes because other countries consider the US dollar as the ultimate refuge currency. This belief is supported by the military might of the only left superpower. By proclaiming through acts and nomination choices a policy of retirement, the White House weakens its muscles and softens the position of the dollar in turbulent times. Less military presence therefore equals a lower acceptance of the US currency. Interesting to note that the Federal Reserve has announced lately a shift in its policy of quantitative easing, the de facto printing of money. The interconnections of actions imply that a war in the Middle East can easily be exported inside the US borders through terrorism and economic decline. Containing international instability as a result of the Hagel doctrine through elimination of terrorism with the support of Brennan will be a difficult task to achieve. The US disengagement will lead to more local conflicts because the fear of the Almighty US will fade. The lack of fear and of polarisation, will empower local powers in their ambitions and lead to regional conflicts. The US could be pushed even faster in a war as a result of its retrieval because they leave a void with many unresolved issues and the false impression that everything is possible. Without the fear of US intervention, war becomes even more a probability. Alexander Zanzer