challenges to the international order - geopolitica.info...general framework of obama’sforeign...

Does not Leading from Behind Work?Risks of the Obama Doctrine in the Post-Soviet Space

Gabriele NataliziaLink Campus [email protected]

Conference

Challenges to the International OrderSapienza University of Rome

Challenges to the International Order Sapienza Università di Roma

04/12/2014 1

What does order mean

in IR discipline?


04/12/2014 2

• Order characterizes the domestic dimension, where results imposed by the top-down action of the State, while within non hierarchical structures - as the international system - arises informally as consequence of a bottom-up dynamic: the interactions among formally equal political actors [States] (Waltz);

• The redistribution of power and prestige generated by the end of a major war, as showed by the polarity assumed by the international system (Bonanate; Colombo).

The contemporary international system hasbeen shaped by the end of the Cold war.

Its main features are:


04/12/2014 3

• An undisputed condition of unipolarity - almost until 09/11/2001 - or a condition of unipolarityfacing regional attempts of counterbalance Us power;

• The United States play the role of guarantor of order in every geopolitical region;

• At a global level, no sources of political legitimation challenge the gradual expansion of liberal democracy political path and capitalistic economic system.


04/12/2014 4

Us federalspending for the Defense departmentin 2013 amounted to $ 625 billion(18% of public expenditure)


04/12/2014 5

American basesaccrossthe world


04/12/2014 6

American capability to projectpoweraccross the world

Clinton and Bush Administrations declined a concept of order deeply different from the bipolar past.

Some elements of continuity (1993-2008):


04/12/2014 7

• Washington opted for a deep engagement strategy in order to prove his character of “necessary nation”;

• The order will be guaranteed through the revolution of the status quo and considering the use of force;

• Factors of the disorder are settled within domestic dimension of States;

• United States has the responsiveness to restore or impose order. This condition admit the possibility of violating principles of the classic international law (sovereignty; non interference);

• New international practices and laws arise (regime change, pre-emptive strike, R2P);

• The Russian prism continued to influence Us foreign policy.

General framework of Obama’s foreign policy:


04/12/2014 8

• Leading from behind, which means the empowerment of actors whose aims are interconnected with those of Usa or which can be used as cover for a policy that would be suspect if branded as a purely American operation;

• Maintenance of the leadership implies a selective engagement.The direct use of Us army will occur exclusively in regions vital for the national interests;

• National interest shifts toward east: the pivot to Asia;• Strategic reassurance, centered on transforming strategic

competitors into strategic partners and on preventing potential mediators from becoming real enemies;

• Substantial lack of interest in revolutionizing the status quo.

After six years of Obama Administration, is the internationalorder safer than in the previous two

decades?


04/12/2014 9

Recent political evolutions in the post soviet space seem to draw a fil rouge

between the Obama’s approach and the raise of Russian power politics, that

could weaken the international stability


04/12/2014 10

• the awareness of declining American power (loss ofeffectiveness) induce to avoid overstretching;

• the perception of United States as reviled in manyregions (loss of legitimacy) induces renouncing to bethe “indispensable nation”;

➔ The annexation of Crimea (and now the support torebels of Lugansk and Donetsk oblast) occurred inpresence of ability of Moscow to exploit divergence ofinterests of Us allies and their lacks in the dimension ofhard power (Eu States and Ukraine).

1. Leading from behind strategy suggests that two ideas took roots within Obama

Administration:


04/12/2014 11

• the declining will – or capability - of using forcein every geopolitical theater-levels;

• the weakening of a political environment which –in the past – was useful to prevent (threat of useof force) or to arrest (use of force) regional“balancers” of United States;

➔ If Russia would use the force in Ukraine waspredictable that Usa would not do the same, alsothanks to the concomitant crisis in Syria/Iraq,strengthening benefits of fait accompli diplomacy (theannexation of Crimea).

2. Selective engagement.

Reasons and outcomes:


04/12/2014 12

• the existence of a new core area (Asia-Pacific) forAmerican national interest;

• the vanishing of the Russian prism and,consequently, of post-soviet space as pillar ofselective engagement;

➔ Russian strategy in “near abroad” was favored bythe American strategic shifting, the geographicalproximity and the fear of abandonment of Europeanallies (some of them are tempted to bandwagon withRussia in relation to the Ukrainian crisis).

3. The pivot to Asia



04/12/2014 13

• Preference for multilateral strategy with allies;• Will to change the role of rivals of Bush

Administration (Russia, China and Iran), fromstrategic competitors to strategic partners;

➔ The ineffectiveness of this approach (relationswith Russia and China became worst than in thepast) combined with a perception of weaknessprovoked a struggle to establish a new regionalorder.

4. Strategic reassurance



04/12/2014 14

• Nevertheless its “idealistic” image, the ObamaAdministration renounced to promote regimechanges in the most relevant areas for strategicinterests. It adopted an approach which combinerealistic ideas with the cult of soft power;

➔ The unwillingness of Obama Administration tointervene in Syria (summer 2013) constituted the proofUS not challenge Russian action in Ukraine. Thiscondition allowed Moscow, determined to preserve theRussian influence on near abroad, to act aggressivelywith no real consequences.

5. Preserving the status quo.


“As President of the United States, I will work tirelessly to protect America’s security and to advance our interests.

But no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century on its own, nor dictate its terms to the world.

That is why America seeks an international system that lets nations pursue their interests peacefully, especially

when those interests diverge; a system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and

violations of those rights are opposed; a system where we hold ourselves to the same standards that we apply to other nations, with clear rights and responsibilities for

all.”—President Barack Obama, Moscow, Russia, July 7, 2009


04/12/2014 15

challenges to the international order - geopolitica.info...general framework of obama’sforeign...

Documents