At a
political event in Wilmington, Delaware, on Thursday, President Obama
devoted only 40 seconds to the shooting down of the Malaysian airline,
his first statement to the world following the news.
His
emotionless reference to the attack as ‘a terrible tragedy’ seemed
disconnected from the horrific moment, particularly as he immediately
reverted to script to praise his administration and criticise
Republicans.
It
was a far cry from President Reagan’s 1983 fierce denunciation of the
Soviet shooting down of a Korean airliner as a ‘crime against humanity’.
But it only
confirmed the chaos into which US foreign policy has descended since the
summer of 2012 when reporters at a White House briefing asked Mr Obama
about the security of chemical weapons in the Syrian stockpile.
The
commander in chief went beyond safety and said: ‘We have been very
clear to the Assad regime … that a red line for us is [when] we start
seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being
utilised.’
The
term ‘red line’ is the kind of clear, emphatic language major powers
use only when they are prepared to back words with action.
Finally,
there was the utter failure to attract congressional support, assuming
Mr Obama really wanted Congress to endorse the proposed attacks.
That
the Parliament of our closest ally, Great Britain, rejected an air
campaign first gave Mr Obama an additional reason for inactivity. The
flailing seemed to end when Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the
door to a negotiated deal with Syria. But it was not the end; it was the
beginning.
For
as the administration rushed to that door, all over the world those who
depended on America when in harrowing circumstances were asking
themselves: How reliable is America now? How strong now?
Also
asking was Mr Putin. He noted the contrast between Mr Obama’s bold talk
and timid response. As the former head of a friendly government said in
a small meeting I attended not long ago: ‘Putin is cautious. He will
probe. If he encounters resistance, he will pull back.’
The US failure to follow through in Syria gave the Russian president confidence that he could move with impunity.
SOON he was
picking a fight with Ukraine. Like the scene in The Godfather – when, at
his child’s baptism, Michael Corleone renounces the devil as the camera
cuts back and forth to his men eliminating rival gangsters – Putin,
before global television cameras, watched the opening ceremonies of the
Sochi Olympics as Russian troops began movements preparatory to seizing
Crimea.
This
week, in the skies over Ukraine, we saw the consequences of the
recklessness that the Russian godfather’s probing has unleashed.
Putin
was not the only one to detect opportunity in American indecision.
China stepped up its probes in the East and South China Seas. In the
Middle East, with the US military presence drawn down nearly to zero in
Iraq and soon Afghanistan, an army of ruthless fanatics gestating
unnoticed in Syria’s east saw the chance to break out of national
boundaries and within a few weeks occupied much of western and central
Iraq.
Why has so much of the global order come apart so fast?
For
the same reason that, as a friend reports, on the streets of San
Salvador those who will smuggle your child to the Rio Grande have been
securing an unprecedented volume of sign-ups. When asked about the
chances of the child staying in America once the border is crossed, they
tell parents: ‘It has never been easier.’
Now the word on weakness is everywhere, even the poorest barrios of Central America.
‘The
fact that you have a crisis in Ukraine has nothing to do with Gaza,’ a
deputy national security adviser to the President told an interviewer
recently.
The
current White House doesn’t understand how US fecklessness in Syria can
reverberate to Ukraine, and from there to the South China Sea, and the
Americas, and Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East.
In
all this I have referred to the United States as the primary shaper of
world events, which is, in fact, a misleading shorthand. The US is not a
superpower so much as the biggest player in a set of super-alliances,
the most critical of which is with the UK.
Since
the Second World War, when the US and Britain have been of one mind,
liberal values have been secure and even advanced. When either has lost
its sense of direction, neither has been nearly so effective.
The great danger in being the anchor to the global order is that when we lose our way the general peace itself is threatened.
This
is just what we are seeing in theatre after theatre around the world.
Perhaps it is time for a key ally like Prime Minister David Cameron to
have a friendly talk with the President.
It is not just American interests that a flailing White House threatens. It is that of peoples everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment