Can Obama Still Be ‘Leader of the Free World’?

Even Reagan might have a problem dominating the stage these days.

National Journal
Michael Hirsh
March 24, 2014, 6:15 p.m.

All of a sud­den, it seems the pres­id­ent who was eager to fo­cus on “na­tion-build­ing at home” is cast­ing him­self in a hoary role that many people thought went out with the Cold War: “lead­er of the free world.” The ques­tion is, can Barack Obama really play the part that Frank­lin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, or Ron­ald Re­agan once did on the world stage — even if he per­forms very deftly — or is that too much to ask of any U.S. pres­id­ent these days?

Obama’s own top aides have been rais­ing ex­pect­a­tions that he can stride con­fid­ently back in­to the geo­pol­it­ic­al lime­light and lead a uni­fied front against Vladi­mir Putin. “The stra­tegic im­port­ance of this ef­fort really can’t be over­stated,” said his na­tion­al se­cur­ity ad­viser, Susan Rice, com­ment­ing on the series of sum­mit meet­ings that began in Hol­land on Monday not only with lead­ers of the retro-christened G-7 (good-bye Rus­sia), but with Chinese Pres­id­ent Xi Jin­peng in their first face-to-face since the G-20 last Septem­ber.

Obama goes in­to these meet­ings as a pres­id­ent who is seen by crit­ics to be in re­treat from the world, and tem­por­iz­ing some­what over Rus­sia’s ag­gres­sion. Can he come out of them with a re­newed im­age as a tough, stal­wart lead­er of the world’s only su­per­power — as the man who suc­cess­fully stared down “Amer­ica’s No. 1 geo­pol­it­ic­al foe”? It’s no sur­prise that the au­thor of that phrase, Mitt Rom­ney, has been all over the TV talk shows cri­ti­ciz­ing the pres­id­ent for fail­ing to agree with the GOP nom­in­ee’s tough as­sess­ment of Rus­sia in 2012 — not to men­tion care­fully lump­ing Obama to­geth­er with his first-term sec­ret­ary of State, Hil­lary Clin­ton, the pro­claimed Demo­crat­ic front-run­ner for 2016.

But if the threat from Rus­sia to parts of East­ern Europe today has echoes of the Cold War, a lot of oth­er things are dif­fer­ent, and they have little to do with Obama’s lead­er­ship. In re­cent years, as the G-7 meet­ings have been ec­lipsed by the more in­clus­ive and dy­nam­ic G-20 sum­mits, Amer­ica’s voice has grown faint­er in the crowd. The G-20 sum­mits and sub­sequent meet­ings came of age in an era of U.S. weak­ness and culp­ab­il­ity — with Wall Street seen as the cause of the 2008 fin­an­cial crisis — rather than Cold War strength. 

Hence, when U.S. of­fi­cials have tried to guide events, their pro­pos­als have of­ten seemed to eli­cit com­plaint, even con­tempt. At re­cent G-8 and G-20 meet­ings, the Ger­mans have seethed over U.S. in­ter­fer­ence in E.U. budget is­sues, while oth­er less­er powers like South Korea have simply slapped down Amer­ic­an ideas. “In the ‘90s, I al­ways thought that the per­suas­ive­ness of what I said was amp­li­fied by about 30 per­cent be­cause I was a U.S. of­fi­cial,” one of­fi­cial who served in both the Clin­ton and Obama ad­min­is­tra­tions told me after the 2009 Seoul sum­mit. “This time around there was no amp­li­fic­a­tion factor at all. In fact, if you were in the [Obama] ad­min­is­tra­tion there might even have been a slight dis­count.”

A changed in­ter­na­tion­al en­vir­on­ment has also dra­mat­ic­ally re­duced U.S. lever­age abroad. Amer­ica’s share of the world eco­nomy has gradu­ally de­clined, and even its mighty and still dom­in­ant mil­it­ary has been some­what de­mys­ti­fied by the suc­cess of in­sur­gents in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan over the past dec­ade. Gone, too, is the mor­al and mil­it­ary au­thor­ity left over from World War II and the bulk of the Cold War, when be­ing a U.S. ally against So­viet power was not a choice but a ne­ces­sity for “free-world” na­tions. Nor did it help that the United States nev­er de­veloped a new strategy in the post-Cold War era to re­place con­tain­ment, in­stead pro­ject­ing an im­age of drift and in­tern­al dis­sent. Wash­ing­ton tried “demo­crat­ic en­large­ment” (Bill Clin­ton), “as­sert­ive mul­ti­lat­er­al­ism” (Madeleine Al­bright), “the Bush Doc­trine” (no one’s quite sure what it was), and more re­cently Obama’s “no-doc­trine” pres­id­ency, but none has won many ad­her­ents abroad. Al­lied fealty has not been helped by the Snowden rev­el­a­tions either; Ger­man Chan­cel­lor An­gela Merkel is said to be still up­set by last year’s news that the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency was listen­ing in on her cell-phone calls.

Many Rus­sia ex­perts also be­lieve that the Krem­lin’s move in­to Crimea was not planned as a stra­tegic re­sponse to Wash­ing­ton, but was largely a tac­tic­al re­sponse to the sur­prise events of re­cent weeks, when pro-Rus­si­an Ukrain­i­an Pres­id­ent Vikt­or Ya­nukovych fled his coun­try in the face of protests in Kiev. And as former U.S. Am­bas­sad­or to Rus­sia Mi­chael Mc­Faul said Monday, few Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents have been able to stop Rus­si­an in­cur­sions in East­ern Europe go­ing back to the So­viet in­va­sion of Hun­gary in 1956. “When it comes to de­ter­ring Rus­si­an ag­gres­sion in East­ern Europe, the Amer­ic­an track re­cord is pretty poor,” he said in a con­fer­ence call with re­port­ers.

Non­ethe­less, the stakes are high, in­deed. Putin’s oc­cu­pa­tion of his­tor­ic­ally Rus­si­an-linked Crimea was seen as a last-ditch Krem­lin re­sponse to the per­ceived West­ern in­filt­ra­tion in­to the former So­viet sphere be­gin­ning with the over­throw of com­mun­ist re­gimes in the late 1980s, and European Uni­on and NATO ef­forts to bring those coun­tries un­der their um­brella. Obama, in oth­er words, is be­ing asked to an­swer for the policies of four pre­vi­ous Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents — be­gin­ning with Re­agan.

Thus, Amer­ica’s role as the se­cur­ity su­per­power is sud­denly very rel­ev­ant again, es­pe­cially in Europe. If Obama man­ages to emerge from this weeklong series of meet­ings trailed by pos­it­ive re­views in the over­seas me­dia, and Putin does not dare go fur­ther than his an­nex­a­tion of Crimea in re­sponse to the threat of ever-broad­er sanc­tions, it could be a de­cis­ive mo­ment for the U.S. pres­id­ent’s leg­acy — and for Amer­ica’s stature in the world. 

Obama’s re­sponse may also de­term­ine wheth­er the title “lead­er of the free world” still ex­ists. 

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4838) }}

What We're Following See More »
BACKING OUT ON BERNIE
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
2 days ago
THE LATEST

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

AKNOWLEDGING THE INEVITABLE
UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Source:
AP KEEPING COUNT
Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Source:
TRUMP FLOATED IDEA ON JIMMY KIMMEL’S SHOW
Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
4 days ago
THE LATEST
CAMPAIGNS INJECTED NEW AD MONEY
California: It’s Not Over Yet
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.

Source:
×