all world news weblog

By Dan Balz
President Obama’s weekend of summitry in Latin America will be remembered most for his cordial encounter with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The images of that smiling handshake spoke vividly to the changes Obama is bringing to U.S. relations abroad.

The underlying question in all this is whether Obama’s approach means the United States will be dealing out of a position of strength or weakness as the new administration confronts problems ranging from Iran’s nuclear ambitions to Middle East peace to better relations in this hemisphere. Does Obama’s desire to deal more cordially with leaders who are hostile to the United States make him more or less likely to achieve the country’s strategic goals in tough negotiations?

The president was asked at the end of his trip to define an Obama doctrine in foreign policy. After his trips to Europe and Latin America and his meetings with many world leaders, how should Americans and the rest of the world interpret what sets his approach apart from other presidents?

Obama was understandably reluctant at this early stage in his president to offer a lengthy or overly precise answer. But what he said underscored that his early steps are very much in reaction to former president George W. Bush’s style of interacting with the world.

He said he believes the United States remains the most powerful nation in the world, but cannot solve problems by itself. That means listening as well as talking when working with other nations. He said the United States should stand for a universal set of values, live those values whenever possible — and acknowledge mistakes when they occur.

Obama defended his approach as an improvement on the past. He said he is prepared to jettison doctrines and practices that now seem outdated, or that failed to produce real results. But he said there were limits to what he can achieve.

“In Europe, people believe in our plan for Afghanistan, but their politics are still such that it’s hard for leaders to want to send more troops into Afghanistan,” he told reporters on Sunday. “That’s not going to change because I’m popular in Europe or leaders think that I’ve been respectful towards them. On the other hand, by having established those better relations, it means that among the population there’s more confidence that working with the United States is beneficial, and they are going to try to do more than they might otherwise have done.”

No one should be surprised that Obama has adopted this attitude in his first meetings with world leaders. To the extent that there is an Obama doctrine that describes his approach to the world, it was defined on July 23, 2007, during a Democratic debate in South Carolina.

Obama was asked an explicit question. Would he, in his first year as president, be willing to meet without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. “I would,” he replied. “And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

Obama was roundly criticized for that answer by his rivals for the Democratic nomination — and especially by now-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. He was also criticized by many foreign policy experts, who took his answer as a sign of political naiveté on the part of an inexperienced politician. Obama stood his ground, convinced that his critics were defending an old paradigm.

Over time, Obama equivocated on that answer but not apparently on his belief that a new approach could yield results that eluded the Bush administration. Having won the presidency, he has begun to act on that conviction.

He has signaled new openness toward diplomatic discussions with Iran. He said in Europe that the United States has not always lived up to its ideals. He has softened U.S. policy toward Cuba and, in return, Cuban President Raul Castro said last week everything was now on the table for talks. The weekend meetings brought him face to face not only with Venezuela’s Chavez but also Bolivia’s Evo Morales.

Obama was asked Sunday whether he was worried about being perceived back home as soft. “We had this debate throughout the campaign, and the whole notion was — is — that somehow if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness. The American people didn’t buy it. And there’s a good reason the American people didn’t buy it — because it doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Shaking hands with Chavez does nothing to endanger U.S. strategic interests, he argued. Nor does having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.

Obama sees irrefutable logic in all this. “On this one, I think I’m right,” he said Sunday — the same posture he took when he was criticized during the campaign. But the opening rounds of his diplomatic outreach to the world provide no real answers to the bigger questions.

He benefits now from the backlash against Bush’s presidency. In time, his foreign policy will have to stand on its own record.
Source