peacefare.net

Not a foreign policy Inaugural, but…

President Obama said little about foreign affairs in his Inauguration speech, but what he said bears more attention than it is getting.  After a tribute America’s armed forces (and mention that we are ending a decade of war), he went on to say:

But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

This is extraordinarily general, or maybe tantalizingly vague.  I think I know what it means for Iran:  continuation of negotiations, at least for a while.  But what does it mean for the brave Syrians who are fighting what is proving to be a frighteningly violent regime?  It certainly aligns America with support for the Arab awakenings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya, but what does it mean for Bahrain?  Or Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states?  Or, even more importantly, for China, where “those who long for freedom” are increasingly speaking out?

What we know from Obama’s first term is that he balances ideals and reality in each case based on specific circumstances.  He is lawyerly in approach, treating each contingency on its merits rather than laying out a more generally applicable “Obama” doctrine (other than support for democracy and concern for the disadvantaged).  This is very different from his predecessor, who set out general principles and tried to apply them to specific cases without much regard for the particular circumstances, with disastrous results.

My guess is that circumstances will force the President to say and do a great deal more about Iran, Syria, China and other situations in short order.  His reference to American alliances and “those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad”–that’s presumably the UN, OSCE, OAS and the rest of the alphabet soup of international organizations, including non-governmental ones–is a clear indication that he will be looking for help from others when he decides to act internationally.

What he did not say–but none of us should forget–is that America’s financial situation and its internal politics will constrain what it can do internationally for at least the next four years.  We are broke, as the Republicans like to say.  But we’ll have to wait at least for the State of the Union message if not longer to see what the Inaugural message means for resources to support both our military and civilian efforts abroad.