US president Barack Obama’s reckless interview with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, in which he criticised several of America’s allies, has only begun provoking a backlash in the Middle East.
The most conspicuous was a riposte written by Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal, in which he angrily protested to the president. Yet Washington’s disappointed regional friends have little to look forward to, if the presidential nomination season is anything to go by. None of the leading candidates, with the exception perhaps of Hillary Clinton, shows signs of returning to the past.
In the post-Second World War period, the American foreign policy consensus rested on two pillars: containment of the Soviet Union and communism abroad; and bipartisanship at home in the conduct of foreign affairs. Internationalism – the belief that America, indeed all countries, have common interests to defend collectively at the international level – prevailed.
While America may not be as isolationist as it was almost a century ago, Mr Obama has largely eroded its internationalist mindset. The president has justified his foreign policy primarily on the basis of a narrow reading of American national interests. In his interview with Goldberg, he revealingly took credit for breaking with what he called the “Washington playbook”.
Strangely, Mr Obama also insisted on referring to himself as an internationalist, yet justified this, minimally, through his support for international institutions. Internationalism is also about reinforcing international norms of behaviour, and Mr Obama has refused to do so – not least in Ukraine and Syria, where the president has done little to stop the killing.
None of the presidential candidates have condemned Mr Obama for this. Indeed, foreign policy has been entirely absent from the campaign, except tangentially through vacuous promises about “making America great again”. The American public seems largely indifferent to what happens overseas.
Mr Obama may be critical of the Republican candidates, and has blamed the Republican Party and its policies for the divisiveness of the campaign. Yet the foreign retrenchment they are likely to pursue if they win – namely, the abandonment of internationalist ideals – is really a continuation of the current president’s legacy as outlined in his interview with Goldberg.
It is difficult to imagine Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, let alone Bernie Sanders, beating the table in defence of America’s allies in the Middle East. None seem to have a clue about the region’s politics. But then again if Mr Obama’s sole claim to fame as a man with foreign experience was the fact that he had spent a few years in Indonesia as a child, then standards aren’t high.
The only hope for traditional internationalists remains Mrs Clinton. In a number of foreign situations as secretary of state she advocated for US action, particularly in Syria. She was especially critical of Mr Obama’s refusal to uphold his red line on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, reportedly saying: “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike.”
However, even Mrs Clinton will have to face two obstacles to profound change in foreign policy: the mood of the public and the ingrained nature of previous policies. Based on the debate of the primary season, Americans want a president whose eye remains firmly on domestic affairs, while Mr Obama’s swinging the foreign policy establishment away from the Middle East toward Asia reflected objectively necessary priorities Mrs Clinton will be reluctant to reverse.
The mood with regard to the Middle East has been further marred by a belief that some allies have backed the enemy Americans fear most, namely ISIL. This conclusion may be simplistic, but it has gathered momentum, and nuances are not the forte of an inward-looking electorate.
It is remarkable how Mr Obama has completely shattered what had been permanent fixtures of American policy in the region. He takes pride in having done away with the previous rules. Yet it is hubris to say these don’t apply anymore when no new rules are in place, and when no effort was ever made to coordinate American disengagement with Middle Eastern allies.
It is no less noteworthy that not a single presidential candidate has take Mr Obama to task on this. That’s because the president is viewed as unassailable when it comes to the region. There is simply no strong constituency in favour of making the Middle East a cornerstone of foreign policy, as it was for six decades.
In his Atlantic interview, Mr Obama sought to portray himself as a revisionist president. But what he didn’t say was how much his approach was facilitated by a general change in outlook in the United States. Mr Obama was as much a follower as a purveyor of radical new ideas.
However, looking at most of the Republican and Democratic candidates today, Mr Obama seems almost a sedate conservative by comparison. The states of the region should get the message. Going back to former days will not happen soon, if it ever happens at all. We’re in the presence of a new America.
Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut.
On Twitter: @BeirutCalling
