http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 231.column
Essentially, it boils down to "Obama's foreign policy approach is going nowhere because we will never be able to get the rest of the world to obey our every command". I can only wonder what he considers to be a successful marriage, if his idea of successful foreign relations is "they obey us". When he says "can't resolve the differences", what he means is "can't make other countries do whatever we say". This is the entire problem with the way far too many Americans think of foreign relations.The end of Obamania
On his overseas trip, the president was met with a lot less cheering and a lot more tough talk.
Doyle McManus
July 12, 2009
Barack Obama has fallen back to Earth.
When he ran for president, Obama said his election would be "the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow." And when he made his first big foreign trip in April, he was hailed by adoring crowds -- and almost-as-adoring politicians -- in Britain, Germany, France and the Czech Republic.
But last week, in Russia and Italy, Obamania was little more than a pleasant memory. Yes, his international polling numbers are still high, but the president encountered hardly any adulation in the streets of Moscow or anywhere else. Instead, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin reportedly gave him a tongue-lashing over a two-hour breakfast, and the tent-bound refugees from Italy's April earthquake mostly wanted to know whether he could rebuild their homes. ("Yes, we camp," their banner said, pointedly.)
And the oceans are still rising too. At the Group of 8 summit, the developing countries said no to a timetable to stop global warming, the reason for the waters' rise.
That's not to say the trip was a bust; it wasn't. But it was far from a triumph, and that's a new experience for Obama's foreign policy team.
The hard reality of international affairs is that, just as the United States has interests, so do other countries. And when those interests conflict, all the charm and charisma in the world can't resolve the differences.
At the G-8 summit, the United States, Britain and France had hoped for a tough statement on Iran's nuclear ambitions. The closest they got to a warning was this: "We sincerely hope that Iran will seize this opportunity to give diplomacy a chance."
The summit's other accomplishments were mostly worthy half-measures. The developing countries wouldn't sign on, but the eight big economies agreed to try to for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, 41 years from now. After a personal appeal from Obama, member nations promised $20 billion to help poor countries grow more food, but much of the money turned out to be old pledges under a new name.
Obama went to Moscow to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations, which under George W. Bush had veered from unrealistic enthusiasm to bitter recriminations. He succeeded in changing the tone, but the concrete results were modest. The two nuclear powers agreed on a framework for reducing their atomic arsenals, but since both sides went into the talks wanting to cut, the nuclear issue was the easy part.
More difficult were the issues each country sees as its top priority: for the United States, the problem of Iran; for Russia, the desire of its onetime possessions Ukraine and Georgia to escape from Moscow's orbit.
Obama avoided the rookie mistake that John F. Kennedy committed at his first summit meeting in 1961, when the new president left the Russians thinking he was young, untested and uncertain. Obama said clearly that Russia must respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia. But he certainly didn't leave with the issue resolved.
On Iran, which aides said was a dominant subject of the meetings, there was no sign that Obama got the Russians to budge. The U.S. wants Russia to support tougher economic sanctions to push Iran toward giving up its nuclear fuel production. Russia, which views next-door neighbor Iran as both a business opportunity and a local security problem, has no appetite for that kind of confrontation.
"Iran is Russia's important partner," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on the eve of Obama's visit. "We cooperate and do so very productively." More sanctions "will only deteriorate the situation," he said. And that was his last word on the subject.
At their news conference, Obama wanted to talk about Iran, but Medvedev wouldn't mention the place. The Russians agreed to a joint study on the threat of ballistic missiles from countries such as North Korea and Iran, but that's about all.
"People have made too much of the 'reset.' They've talked about it as if it had magical properties or strategic content," said Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations, a 25-year veteran of U.S.-Russia diplomacy. "But what happens when you reset a computer? You don't change the content. All you do, if you're lucky, is get the bugs out and start working again."
Obama and his aides may succeed in building a less angry, more businesslike relationship with the Russians, but will that change Moscow's views on Iran? Not likely. As Sestanovich puts it: "Russians don't think the problem is solvable."
Americans, of course, think every problem is solvable -- a persistent difference between the Old World and the New. But judging from last week's inconclusive diplomacy, the Russians may be right about this one.
The United States and its allies want Iran to negotiate, but Iran's Islamic leaders, facing challenges to their legitimacy at home, are digging in their heels. The next step, probably in September, is a concerted Western effort to step up economic sanctions against Tehran -- but that may mean a confrontation with Russia and China, which don't agree that sanctions are necessary.
All of which left Obama sounding, at the end of the week, as if he looked forward to getting back to solvable problems -- such as the economy and healthcare. "The one thing I will be looking forward to," he said, "is fewer summit meetings."
Now, here's what they're saying in Russia about the recent talks:
http://watchingamerica.com/News/31321/w ... to-moscow/
It's quite frankly a triumph just to restore relations: something that far too many Americans don't understand. They don't see other countries as real entities containing human beings which want to be understood; they see them as chess pieces on some kind of global playing board, and if they don't do what you want, then they're useless and there's no point talking to them at all. The most telling phrase was the part where it was pointed out that Bush tended to arrive in Russia with a list of demands, whereas Obama was willing to actually talk, and listen.What Did Obama Get Out of His Visit to Moscow?
By Yekaterina Grigoryeva
Translated By Olga Kerzhner
8 July 2009
Edited by Katy Burtner
Russia - Izvestia - Original Article (Russian)
On Wednesday morning, after his first visit to Moscow, Barack Obama left the Russian capital. If not “Obama-mania,” then at least “Obama-optimism” remained in his wake. Should we expect this optimism to bear any fruit?
Everyone who participated in the talks with Obama noted that the very style of the Russian-American dialogue has qualitatively changed. The U.S. president did not arrive with ready-made solutions (e.g. “Here, we must do so and so”). Instead, he came with a desire to understand the actual situation. There is a psychological law that says if you really want someone to agree with you, show that you understand the opponent’s position, and only then say "but."
That’s exactly what Obama did. In fact, some of his key phrases surpassed many (even of the boldest) expectations. The following statement alone is very valuable. Obama stated: “Russia's future is up to the Russian people. Not every choice that's good for the United States is going to be good for Russia.” Sources close to the talks tell Izvestia that this and similar phrases were heard and appreciated.
This change in tone has already produced a significant result. During the visit, the Afghan transit agreement was signed. The agreement enables Americans to significantly cut costs with respect to their own military presence in Afghanistan (which is, of course, important for Obama’s approval ratings). The shorter flight route alone will save the U.S. approximately $140 million in fuel and other costs. In addition, Russia agreed not to charge a fee for the use of its air space, which also saved approximately $20 million.
It seems like Russia keeps making concessions to America, and what’s the good in that? But there is a benefit – the right, at any time, to inspect military cargo. In other words, after Washington listened to Moscow’s position, it didn’t shout, “we transport whatever we want and it’s none of your business,” but simply took a step towards mutual agreement. The agreement also clearly specifies what can and cannot be transported, and the rules for the inspections. Moscow also appreciates this approach. Izvestia’s sources say that no one, for pride’s sake, will inspect the aircrafts and, most likely, Americans will fly freely.
Can this “model” approach taken in the Afghan transit agreement be applied to other areas? Obama’s attitude seems to indicate that the answer is more likely yes than no. For example, sources say that during his breakfast with Vladimir Putin, Obama inquired in detail about the proposals Putin made to George W. Bush during his presidency. Among Obama’s inquiries was the area of missile defense. It seemed as though Obama’s advisers (perhaps, the same people who wrote “overload” [peregruzka] instead of “reset” [perezagruzka]) weren’t telling him everything.
The same applies to the South Ossetian situation. On the one hand, Obama has repeatedly emphasized (even in Moscow) that he supports Georgia’s territorial integrity. But there are parallel signals that paint a different picture. First, Georgia’s territorial integrity should not be recovered through military means. And second, the current U.S. administration considers some of its predecessor’s decisions in this area to be misguided and rash.
Once, Bush looked into Putin’s soul. Obama, it seems, is interested in rational arguments, not the soul. His first visit could be considered the “words” stage. The “deeds” stage will begin in September when the U.S. and Russian presidents meet again.
What was the most important aspect of Obama’s visit?
By Natalia Antipova, Vasiliy Voropaev
Ilya Ponomarev, Russian State Duma deputy, a participant in the talks with the U.S. President:
- I think that the main outcome of the U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Russia is that now he knows more about Russia than any previous U.S. administration. He has demonstrated a desire to find out what’s really going on in Russia. I think that now, American policy will not operate with its eyes closed, but instead will hold itself more accountable for its actions. American politics will undergo major changes compared to the previous administration, even taking into account the views that the current Obama administration might have had.
But we shouldn’t talk about any radical changes in Russian-American relations. Especially considering that Obama himself, when I spoke with him, warned against any illusions or inflated expectations. He stressed that any changes will be very gradual, but profound and meaningful. The ideological stereotypes of the previous administration, which dictated neo-conservatism, will be gone. The rest will be up to us and depends on whether we can translate this conversation in a common language into concrete action.
Alexei Arbatov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Head of the Center for International Security at Institute of World Economy and International:
- I wouldn’t say that there were any major developments, or that we reached new horizons. But a major step was taken to restore the relations, which were practically destroyed in August of last year. Neither side lost, neither side won. I think that now, relations can only be built on the basis of mutual interest. As a result, to the extent that this important, albeit modest step, was taken, both sides won.
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:
- The main outcome is the change in the relations’ climate. During the fall of last year, the mutual trust level declined approximately to the atmosphere of the early ‘80s, which was the early Reagan era. For 2008, this was, of course, unnatural. Currently, the character of cooperation has been more or less restored. This is not a guarantee that the mechanism will operate like clockwork, but at least it started working. This is a serious result. Both delegations and both presidents have said, publicly and privately, that the atmosphere of the dialogue is very good. That’s already not bad.
