by Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
If any more proof were
needed that the era of American dominance in today's international arena
is mired in a process of accelerated decline, Forbes magazine's 2013
ranking of the world's most influential people is simply further
affirmation. The only surprising part of the ranking was not that U.S.
President Barack Obama was ousted from the top spot by Russian President
Vladimir Putin, but that the American president finished in second
place ahead of considerably more impressive figures as far as their
proven achievements are concerned (such as German Chancellor Angela
Merkel) or the inspiring nature of their visions (Pope Francis, for
example).
Indeed, after nearly
five years since Obama entered the White House it is abundantly clear
that the American superpower has traveled back in time to the late
1970s, to the time of former President Jimmy Carter. It is not merely
that the Carter administration projected obvious weakness in confronting
the diplomatic and strategic challenges it faced (including coming to
terms with the imprisonment of 53 American diplomats inside the U.S.
embassy in Tehran without a response), but that its foreign policy is
rife with internal contradictions and lacks a minimum degree of
consistency. Despite the potential offered by the current global and
regional circumstances, Obama continues to offer up the same muddled
policy outline as Carter, and continues treading down the path set forth
by the peanut farmer from Georgia after landing in the Oval Office on
January 20, 1977.
Thus, for example, in
the same manner that for three whole years (until the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979) Carter championed a foreign policy of appeasement
vis-à-vis the Russians, the Obama administration has formulated its
policies vis-à-vis "rogue states" (like Iran and Syria). It is a policy
based on a litany of unequivocally liberal axioms, which at their core
-- and which is entirely becoming of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate --
negate the military option as a legitimate element in the strategic tool
box of the American superpower.
In 1980 it was Carter
who, after endless hesitation, ordered a modest rescue operation to save
the hostages in Tehran (which failed miserably). Recently, it was Obama
who recoiled from even ordering a minimal missile strike directly
targeting the Assad regime's military forces and installations. This,
despite his firm promises to do so if Damascus were to cross the red
line of using chemical weapons. It is true that the campaign in
Afghanistan is not yet over, but the target date determined by the
administration to end its involvement there is firm and valid. In the
Libyan arena, meanwhile, where the U.S. has also been active, the Obama
administration took pains to keep a low profile and was essentially
dragged into action by its NATO partners, Great Britain and France.
The same things can be
said for the administration's conduct in the Iranian sphere, where the
over-enthusiasm being exhibited by "all of Obama's people" to reach a
deal with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani is weakening their bargaining
position even before negotiations reach their critical stage.
A similar picture of
weakness, bordering on clumsiness, is discernible on the domestic front.
After investing most of its energy and presidential resources in the
crown jewel -- the health care reform act -- the White House is now
struggling to actually implement it following its formal approval,
resulting in continued organizational chaos that could jeopardize
Obama's entire vision. This is comparable to the failed administrative
work, lacking a minimal modicum of sensitivity, surrounding the Edward
Snowden affair through all its twists and turns. In this regard as well,
Obama exhibited weakness, detachment and aloofness, and avoided what
the situation required of him by not delving into the National Security
Agency's "black box."
Amid this backdrop, it is not
surprising that Putin, who enjoys a wider range of maneuverability on
the domestic front, passed Obama to take the top spot on the Forbes
list. The days ahead will let us know if America's process of decline
and its willing renunciation of its status as the world's No. 1
hegemony, while retreating into its own world, will also continue into
2014 and gain expression in Forbes' next ranking.
Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6187
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment