Michael A. Cohen
For a presidential lame duck, Barack Obama had a pretty good year in 2015, and nowhere more so than on foreign policy.
The historic, multilateral deal with Iran to limit and ensure transparent oversight of its nuclear fuel enrichment program was the president’s highpoint, the culmination of a six-year strategy to isolate Iran, diplomatically and economically, and force the country to the table to negotiate. The agreement provides a huge boost to global nonproliferation efforts and represents the realization of Obama’s oft-stated goal to dramatically reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
The Iran nuclear agreement, however, may in time be surpassed by the COP21 Paris climate change pact announced in December, which represents the most consequential effort in history to ameliorate the impact of global warming. Obama pushed hard for the deal, and set the stage for a successful outcome in Paris by reaching an agreement with China at the end of 2014 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the Paris deal to be successful, it will still have to be followed up by concrete efforts to meet emission targets. Nonetheless, the pact provides the best hope possible for preventing catastrophic global warming.
In and of themselves, these two agreements would be more than enough to burnish a fairly impressive presidential reputation on foreign policy.
In the grand sweep of history, 2015 was a year of vitally important progress.
But 2015 also saw the reopening of relations with Cuba, a move that has the potential to nudge that country closer to normalcy and greater economic and political freedom. The successfully completed negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership increase the possibility of a regional trade agreement binding the two sides of the Pacific, although the deal still awaits ratification. Peace talks among the protagonists in the Syrian civil war were restarted in the fall, and though diplomatic efforts remain uncertain and fragile, the president’s cobbling together of a multinational military coalition has helped to undermine the Islamic State’s position in Syria and Iraq. The capture of Ramadi, by Iraqi forces, at the end of December provided clear evidence that the terrorist group begins 2016 on the defensive. Of course, the ability of the Islamic State and its followers to wreak havoc has not been eliminated, as the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino remind us. Indeed, not everything in 2015 went swimmingly. There was the lack of progress in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, which helped lead to a new spate of terrorist attacks inside Israel. In addition, the continued instability across the Middle East led to massive new refugee flows.
But in the grand sweep of history, 2015 was a year of vitally important progress—and it’s one that has the potential to place Obama in the pantheon of great U.S. foreign policy presidents.
The “to do” list for 2016, however, might be the most difficult to achieve. For Obama, four goals should predominate.
First, close Gitmo once and for all. To be sure, the detention facility at Guantanamo only holds a couple hundred detainees and many of those left are likely never to be released. But shuttering it is as much about symbolism as anything else. It would be a clear indication that the United States has moved past the excesses of the post-9/11 era.
Second, redouble efforts to resolve the Syrian civil war. This goal is truly a long shot, and it’s one that, only a few days into 2016, has already taken a hit, with Iran and Saudi Arabia breaking diplomatic relations over Riyadh’s execution of a Shiite cleric over the weekend. Still, there is a commonality of interests among all involved in the war to find some resolution to the conflict when peace talks convene on Jan. 25. The U.S. won’t be able to force an agreement on groups that are literally fighting for their lives, but resolving what has become perhaps the bloodiest conflict of the 21st century should be a top priority for the administration.
Third, resist the urge to put more American troops in harm’s way. Obama began his presidency with the ill-fated decision to surge 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. It was a decision informed more by politics, domestic and bureaucratic, than good policy. Since then, Obama has largely adhered to a position of no boots on the ground and limiting U.S. involvement in other country’s fights. In Iraq, the number of U.S. troops fighting the Islamic State has slowly crept up with incrementally positive results. Obama should stick to a policy of providing U.S. airpower and training for the Iraqi military, while ensuring that the American presence remains as limited as possible.
Fourth, lay the groundwork for the next president to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. After watching Secretary of State John Kerry’s diplomatic effort in 2013-2014 fail to bring Israelis and Palestinians together—and then seeing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu win re-election while sticking a finger in Obama’s eye on the Iran deal—the White House has largely washed its hands of the conflict. The move of National Security Council staffer Rob Malley, who was initially hired to work on the issue, to the Islamic State portfolio offered a clear indication that the administration was content to run out the clock over the last year of Obama’s term. But while there is no chance of a deal being brokered between now and when Obama leaves office, there are steps that he can take. First, he should support, or at least refuse to veto, a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction. Next, he should support a framework, whether put forward by his administration or a Security Council resolution, laying out what a final status agreement between the two sides will look like—and the more detailed the better. Doing so, will create new realities for the next U.S president, and just as Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy laid the groundwork for Camp David, the Madrid Conference created momentum for the Oslo Accords, and the Clinton Parameters became the template for George W. Bush and Obama’s peace-making efforts, those new realities may create the template for a final agreement brokered by Obama’s successor.
Fifth, make sure Hillary Clinton gets elected president. Obama has had a pretty good run on foreign policy to date, but there’s one clear way to solidify it: elect a member of his own party to succeed him. Now, to be sure, Clinton is probably more hawkish and more amenable to the use of force than Obama, but on probably 90-95 percent of the issues that will confront the next president, the two leaders see eye-to-eye. If Obama wants to solidify the gains made during his presidency, and his legacy, doing everything he can to ensure that Clinton follows him in office should be his No. 1 priority.
For a presidential lame duck, Barack Obama had a pretty good year in 2015, and nowhere more so than on foreign policy.
The historic, multilateral deal with Iran to limit and ensure transparent oversight of its nuclear fuel enrichment program was the president’s highpoint, the culmination of a six-year strategy to isolate Iran, diplomatically and economically, and force the country to the table to negotiate. The agreement provides a huge boost to global nonproliferation efforts and represents the realization of Obama’s oft-stated goal to dramatically reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
The Iran nuclear agreement, however, may in time be surpassed by the COP21 Paris climate change pact announced in December, which represents the most consequential effort in history to ameliorate the impact of global warming. Obama pushed hard for the deal, and set the stage for a successful outcome in Paris by reaching an agreement with China at the end of 2014 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the Paris deal to be successful, it will still have to be followed up by concrete efforts to meet emission targets. Nonetheless, the pact provides the best hope possible for preventing catastrophic global warming.
In and of themselves, these two agreements would be more than enough to burnish a fairly impressive presidential reputation on foreign policy.
In the grand sweep of history, 2015 was a year of vitally important progress.
But 2015 also saw the reopening of relations with Cuba, a move that has the potential to nudge that country closer to normalcy and greater economic and political freedom. The successfully completed negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership increase the possibility of a regional trade agreement binding the two sides of the Pacific, although the deal still awaits ratification. Peace talks among the protagonists in the Syrian civil war were restarted in the fall, and though diplomatic efforts remain uncertain and fragile, the president’s cobbling together of a multinational military coalition has helped to undermine the Islamic State’s position in Syria and Iraq. The capture of Ramadi, by Iraqi forces, at the end of December provided clear evidence that the terrorist group begins 2016 on the defensive. Of course, the ability of the Islamic State and its followers to wreak havoc has not been eliminated, as the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino remind us. Indeed, not everything in 2015 went swimmingly. There was the lack of progress in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, which helped lead to a new spate of terrorist attacks inside Israel. In addition, the continued instability across the Middle East led to massive new refugee flows.
But in the grand sweep of history, 2015 was a year of vitally important progress—and it’s one that has the potential to place Obama in the pantheon of great U.S. foreign policy presidents.
The “to do” list for 2016, however, might be the most difficult to achieve. For Obama, four goals should predominate.
First, close Gitmo once and for all. To be sure, the detention facility at Guantanamo only holds a couple hundred detainees and many of those left are likely never to be released. But shuttering it is as much about symbolism as anything else. It would be a clear indication that the United States has moved past the excesses of the post-9/11 era.
Second, redouble efforts to resolve the Syrian civil war. This goal is truly a long shot, and it’s one that, only a few days into 2016, has already taken a hit, with Iran and Saudi Arabia breaking diplomatic relations over Riyadh’s execution of a Shiite cleric over the weekend. Still, there is a commonality of interests among all involved in the war to find some resolution to the conflict when peace talks convene on Jan. 25. The U.S. won’t be able to force an agreement on groups that are literally fighting for their lives, but resolving what has become perhaps the bloodiest conflict of the 21st century should be a top priority for the administration.
Third, resist the urge to put more American troops in harm’s way. Obama began his presidency with the ill-fated decision to surge 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. It was a decision informed more by politics, domestic and bureaucratic, than good policy. Since then, Obama has largely adhered to a position of no boots on the ground and limiting U.S. involvement in other country’s fights. In Iraq, the number of U.S. troops fighting the Islamic State has slowly crept up with incrementally positive results. Obama should stick to a policy of providing U.S. airpower and training for the Iraqi military, while ensuring that the American presence remains as limited as possible.
Fourth, lay the groundwork for the next president to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. After watching Secretary of State John Kerry’s diplomatic effort in 2013-2014 fail to bring Israelis and Palestinians together—and then seeing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu win re-election while sticking a finger in Obama’s eye on the Iran deal—the White House has largely washed its hands of the conflict. The move of National Security Council staffer Rob Malley, who was initially hired to work on the issue, to the Islamic State portfolio offered a clear indication that the administration was content to run out the clock over the last year of Obama’s term. But while there is no chance of a deal being brokered between now and when Obama leaves office, there are steps that he can take. First, he should support, or at least refuse to veto, a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction. Next, he should support a framework, whether put forward by his administration or a Security Council resolution, laying out what a final status agreement between the two sides will look like—and the more detailed the better. Doing so, will create new realities for the next U.S president, and just as Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy laid the groundwork for Camp David, the Madrid Conference created momentum for the Oslo Accords, and the Clinton Parameters became the template for George W. Bush and Obama’s peace-making efforts, those new realities may create the template for a final agreement brokered by Obama’s successor.
Fifth, make sure Hillary Clinton gets elected president. Obama has had a pretty good run on foreign policy to date, but there’s one clear way to solidify it: elect a member of his own party to succeed him. Now, to be sure, Clinton is probably more hawkish and more amenable to the use of force than Obama, but on probably 90-95 percent of the issues that will confront the next president, the two leaders see eye-to-eye. If Obama wants to solidify the gains made during his presidency, and his legacy, doing everything he can to ensure that Clinton follows him in office should be his No. 1 priority.
No comments:
Post a Comment