Кто владеет информацией,
|9 dec 2016|
Obama's Foreign Policy: Returning to Clinton
Delyagin Michael 30.05.2009
After coming Obama to power his administration experienced huge enthusiasm on the occasion of possibilities opening before it.
Country leaders of "old Europe" rebelled against the USA in 2003 because of adventure in Iraq, they faced then the necessity to develop the strategy and to bear independently responsibility for consequences of their activity. Victory turned to be defeat for it turned out unexpectedly that: the European elite which got used after war to sit "in the inside pocket" of the USA is not ready to decision-making and does not wish to be engaged in it at all.
Therefore when phantom of responsibility appeared ahead of them, they were mortally frightened and returned under actually patronage of the USA.
Embodiment in life of this fear and refusal of responsibility, treated officially as "Renaissance of transatlantic partnership" gave the USA huge possibilities of influence on European Union and use of its resources for achievement of own purposes, - however aggressive individualism of Bush's neoconservatives headed by Cheyny led to cooperation restriction, independent power actions of the USA and, as consequence, to their overstrain.
It seemed self-evident that refusal of the USA of individualism, transition to the strategy of collective actions would allow them to lean to the full against Europe and to expand possibilities many times at the expense of cooperation with it.
However attempt to do it, undertaken by Obama, failed in rather painful for the Americans (and not only in respect of wounded vanity) way.
In March, 2009 Obama offered European Union activization of actions in Afghanistan. Now all weight of military operations is born by the Americans and also Englishmen; other Europeans who in due time supported introduction of troops to Afghanistan, hole up in the north, out of a residing zone of the Pashtuns and practically don't participate in operations.
Obama's administration quite reasonably assumed that one could await from military allies more activity - however it tragically miscalculated. Obama was openly though with all respect refused at first at the London summit of "G20" on April, 2nd and then at the NATO summit in Bruxelles on April, 5th. The European states (including countries of Eastern Europe which were considered by the Americans allies against "old Europe") very convincingly explained to the Americans that they wouldn't be at war.
This affront made the USA dependent on Iran. Yes, of course, it became regional leader even earlier through Bush's efforts, both Obama and his representatives, understanding it, specified repeatedly necessity to reconsider relations with Iran and even restored diplomatic relations with it (without any conditions).
However without escalating of military presence of the West in Afghanistan the last will objectively return under control of Talibs. Refusal of the Europeans means that escalating of military presence will be carried out at the expense of the American armies - it, in its turn, creates necessity of reduction of the American military presence in Iraq.
Obama spoke about it during election campaign as about the purpose but he did not assume that that reduction would have compelled character not connected with stabilization of Iraq. Reduction of the American presence in Iraq will sharply increase role of Iran as factor of the Iraqi stability already in the current year. Without it Iran behaves rather frostily, despite of all intensity in relations with the USA making nothing to urge Shiits supervised by it (and forming the majority of the Iraqi society) on struggle against invaders but now its constructive neutrality becomes much more necessary to the Americans, than earlier. It does the president Ahmadinedzhad the owner of foreign policy of the well-being of the president Obama.
The global plan of stimulation of economic (by means of demand stimulation - as forces of only USA will not be enough for it) was the second Obama's offer to the Europeans presented on the eve of the summit of "G20" in London. However it also didn't find understanding in Europe: representatives of European Union let know that they would give money not even on stabilisation of economy of European Union (or European zones) as whole but only on stabilisation of own economies. Refusal to accept Poland in Euro zone on the basis of recent devaluation of zloty as well as refusal to Turkey in its acceptance in European Union in foreseeable future is a display of rejection of the Europeans from economic expansionism.
This refusal in the tactical plan promoted strengthening of its cooperation with Russia and appeared to be useful to us. However in strategic prospect it can lead to radical reconsideration of all the model of development of Turkey, to its return from construction of a secular society of mass consumption to ideology of pan-Turkish expansion.
However as a whole rigid refusal of European Union of Obama's offers dispels now the American illusions about possibility of joint actions with it appeared against deep disappointment in Bush and his interventional policy. The USA slowly but steadily come back to model of cooperation of late Clinton: "We will do what is necessary to us together with Europeans; if we see that it's not possible to persuade them, we will do what is necessary to us alone - if, of course, we will have enough forces". What it means for Third World countries is clear if to recollect the main symbol of realization of such policy at Clinton - "returning to Stone Age" Yugoslavia in 1999.
© 1998-2016 FORUM.msk