Obama & Foreign Policy

Matt Macy

POL 245

21 February 2017

President Obama’s foreign policy stance as described by “The Consequentialist” article in The New Yorker did not fully fall into one school or the other of typical American foreign policy. However, it is a combination multiple schools. One of these is realpolitik, which was made clear by his openness about withdrawing troops from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since there was no clear incentive of continuing them in his administration. This could also be considered an isolationist view, as he did not want “to search for monsters to destroy”, as John Quincy Adams famously said during his stint as Secretary of State. Obama even showed some neo-conservative beliefs in his hope to spread democracy in Egypt and prevent a massacre of civilians by Muammar Qaddafi’s Libyan regime, although military force was only used in the latter situation. Liberal Internationalism would also apply to the events in Egypt and Libya. However, his beliefs are most similar to Liberal Internationalism and Realpolitik.

Liberal internationalism focuses on the actors and processes within foreign policy, as well as self-interest and exercising power through rule-based institutions. The priorities of this school of foreign policy are not only using these institutions to spread power and make decisions, but also to show off liberal values such as democracy, trade, etc. as long as they reflect American interests. For example, the Obama administration wanted to support the youthful movement which endeavored for change in Egypt by protesting Hosni Mubarak’s rule. However, keeping him in power to ensure stability in the region was important as well. Therefore, treading carefully and aiming to create an easy, peaceful, democratic transition was paramount, but it was far from simple. Attempting to back both sides ended up causing some strife on each side. Obama’s speeches and beliefs were more in line with revolutionary representatives than Secretary of State Clinton’s, whom the representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Democratic Front Party refused to speak with. In addition, Obama’s support of the UN resolution which backed interventionist support in Libya due to the belief that the Libyan government was on the brink of massacring civilians in Benghazi that were displeased with the government. This action that received 10 votes for from the UN Security Council was in line with the liberal internationalist idea that preserving humanity is important and those who are in this school of thought would advocate for such measures.

Realpolitik fits in due to the President’s statement that he would withdraw the military from both Afghanistan and Iraq. The article cites how Obama’s advisors helped influence his decision that Asia need to be a bigger focus during his time in the White House due to the increased power and threat posed by the Chinese, as well as the lack of attention given to the region in recent years. The situation-dependent attitude which Obama originally followed is an important part of ethical realism, one of the variants of realpolitik. The articles also notes that Obama would sometimes “talk like an idealist while acting like a realist”, and this puts his beliefs into perspective. While trying to follow through on more ideal, liberal internationalist aims, Obama would sometimes act more like a follower of realpolitik and focus on the issues which he and his staff deemed to be more pertinent.

Realpolitik and liberal internationalism were the two main ideas of foreign policy thought that President Obama and his administration followed during his term in office. Realpolitik was featured in the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, as the wars there were not key to the administrations’ foreign policy goals. Liberal internationalism was prominent in the intervention in Libya which targeted Libyan tanks that were meant to kill rebels who aimed to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. The combination of these two schools shows the early idea that the president would do his best to reply to events with a specific and situational response to the particular issues.