Why Obama lost me

Perhaps due to his impressive intellectual and oratory skills, he even made some skeptics believe that “change” was imminent at home and abroad. But apparently to a large extent it was him who changed, more than the world that he aspired to make a better place. An inspirational leader wowing to challenge the status quo turned into another student of soulless realpolitik.

Like every US president (or any elected leader in a democratic system), Obama is not a magician who can make anything happen. He’s got his own checks and balances. Republicans have certainly been a huge obstacle. Domestic problems, especially with the economy, forced him to nation building inside. There is a widespread lack of appetite for investment on foreign policy in the US public, except for terrorism-thwarting purposes. But these alone cannot be an excuse for a largely ineffective, if not indistinguishable, foreign policy.

White House foreign policy is marred with confusion. What is US doing to counterbalance China? What do they really want to achieve in the Middle East? Are they serious about Israeli-Palestinian peace? If so, why is Obama keeping such a low profile in newly announced round of talks? Are they for or against the popular demands for change in US-friendly and unfriendly regimes? Which principles does the US government uphold in Syria and Egypt? How can the “war on terror” end as Obama proclaims, when intense and legally questionable drone attacks continue breeding new generations of extremists? Will Guantanamo stay open forever? What’s going on with the outreach to the Muslim world, anyway?

John Kerry’s bonus miles

Obama’s choice for the secretary of state, Mr. John Kerry, has also added to the confusion so far. He is a nice man with noble intentions who seems to be enjoying going here and there. But without clear objectives, consistent positions and well-coordinated actions with the bureaucracy, diplomats can only earn bonus miles by traveling. Mr. Kerry’s remarks during his recent Pakistan trip defending Egyptian military intervention as a way of “restoring” democracy -- which, by the way, the White House cannot even call a coup -- was striking evidence of that. Were he to campaign for presidency again, Mr. Kerry would probably say, “I opted for democracy, before I opted against it.”

I was among those who criticized the Bush-Cheney administration for some of their misguided policies. But to their credit, for better or worse, they were at least able to come up with concrete decisions. Indecisiveness and uncertainness are no less a problem than a know-it-all attitude in foreign policy. The first six years of the Bush presidency was marked with an aggressive interventionism, blind idealism and overconfidence. Obama’s, on the other hand, is another extreme: excessive realism, pragmatism, passiveness and timidity. For God’s sake, when will the US strike the right balance in foreign policy?

Over time, the Obama administration has got more and more indifferent to international affairs. That’s frustrating. A commitment to world peace and taking the lead towards that end is not a matter of choice but a responsibility for a big powerhouse like the US. If the world falls apart, America cannot be immune to that. An ordinary citizen can say, “I don’t care what’s happening elsewhere.” When US interests abroad suffer from ineffective policies directly or indirectly, citizens will get hurt and the public mood will also change eventually. Hence, a comprehensive, result-oriented diplomacy enhanced by values and principles is always needed.

Syrian people left alone

It is particularly disappointing to see how the Syrian people were left alone by the Obama administration. US has treated the cancer in Syria as if it will go away by itself without any therapy. Obama decided to put some distance to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin only after Moscow’s decision to harbor United States National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden.

However, Russia has so far largely got away with harboring Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime. I’m not calling for a nuclear war or anything. Like canceling a bilateral summit, there are many diplomatic tactics to show your displeasure and force others to concede. I believe Russia would have acted less rigidly, had they sensed from the outset Washington was really serious about the plight of the Syrian people.

As you can tell, Obama has nearly lost me on the foreign policy front. However, with a little more focus and commitment he can easily win me back. It’s good to have a charming and non-confrontational president at the White House. But there are times that call for bolder actions. Canceling the bilateral summit with Russia was a necessary move in that respect.

To be fair, it’s extremely difficult for any nation or leader to catch up with the amazing pace of history nowadays. But perhaps due to my relatively high expectations from President Obama, I still hope he will take the steering wheel rather than leading from behind. Foreign policy cannot be reduced to public relations. Especially if you are the US, you can’t let frozen conflicts stay frozen, bleeding wounds keep bleeding forever. US interests and the future of the world would be better served by a reboot in the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The sooner, the better...