Monday, March 8, 2010 - 12:02 PM

In today's Washington Post Jackson Diehl writes
about something that has puzzled me for a while: President Obama has
not cultivated the close working relationships with other world leaders that
previous presidents have.
This is triply paradoxical. On the one hand, Obama is exceptionally
popular abroad with elites and the general public. Leaders pay relatively
little political cost in working closely with Obama, unlike, for example, the
abuse Prime Minister Blair suffered for his close relationship with Bush.
On the other hand, to the extent that Obama has put his own stamp on American
grand strategy so far it has been in the extraordinary lengths he has gone
rhetorically to accommodate the complaints levied against the United States. Indeed,
the heart of Obama's first year strategy has been restoring the "soft power
asset base" of the United States by conceding many foreign critiques, clearing
the decks for leaders to start anew with America if they want to. This may help
explain the first hand, Obama's general popularity.
And on the third hand, the dictates of international diplomacy inevitably focus
on the personalized diplomacy of the top leaders. This was true even when
communications technology frustrated the effort; consider the risks President
Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill ran to hold a secret summit in the
North Atlantic. This is even more true today when the
communications/transportations costs of close contact between global leaders
approaches zero. The president's time is still a scarce and precious resource,
sought by far more global demandeurs than the White House can satisfy.
But beyond this constraint, there is practically no limit to the
closeness of the personal relationship that the president can build with other
leaders -- if he wants to.
And there is the rub. President Obama has not made developing those
relationships a priority, not yet anyway. Such relationships usually
develop with our closest national allies and great powers, but relations with
those countries have all suffered over the past year or so. Russia is the only
great power whose relations with the United States have arguably improved over
the last year and so it is no accident that Medvedev is the first name to pass the laugh test of those that White House handlers floated to Diehl when he asked for an example of a close partner. If Medvedev
does deliver strong Russian support for a top U.S. foreign policy priority like
Iranian sanctions, then this may be an important exception -- but even then, it
will be an exception that proves a more general rule of distant relations, and
there is a good chance that it is not even the exception.
Close personal relations are hardly a panacea. They do not guarantee global
support in the abstract, as measured by opinion polls, nor in the concrete when
measured by foreign governments' willingness to make politically costly moves
that bolster U.S. foreign policies. But bad relations do complicate foreign
policy, as Bush discovered when the fractious relationship with Chirac and
Schroeder contaminated efforts at coercive diplomacy with Iraq in 2002-2003. And
so he went to great lengths to forge a closer personal partnership with the
successors in Paris and Berlin in part because of the painful experience. In
doing so, he followed a pattern discernible in every presidency in modern
times. And the priority presidents assigned to developing those relations has
only intensified in recent decades.
Did they err in doing so, or is Obama erring in breaking the pattern? Or has
Obama found a new way of personal diplomacy that we in the bleachers are
missing?
Interesting choice for an illustrative photo in this post. It features Franklin Roosevelt sitting next to Charles de Gaulle, a man he detested, who in turn profoundly distrusted him.
I have some doubts about President Obama's interest in building strong personal relationships with foreign leaders. He doesn't seem to have that many with key leaders in Congress, after all. On the other hand, it isn't easy to find modern counterparts to Margaret Thatcher or Helmut Kohl, who were so useful to President Reagan, and it may be just as well that Obama can look at someone like Vladimir Putin without thinking he can see the man's soul. At any rate, Obama was handed the worst financial crisis in 80 years when he became President, along with the worst recession in the memory of most Americans. Anyone in his position would put foreign relations on a back burner most of the time. It's not a great situation, but there isn't any point in pretending it doesn't exist.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
(1)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE