“Obama Is Thinking In Eight Years”

In his election campaign, Barack Obama made several promises which are in sturdy contrast with the previous security policy of Bush. What can be expected, which promises may be realized in the coming four years?

The foundations of American security policy are stipulated in the so-called national security doctrine. And this doctrine was created by the Bush government. Presumably, the priorities of the government led by Obama will be the same as they had been in the era of the Bush administration. Although some shifts in emphasis can be expected, naturally. The most important priority will continue to be the fight against terrorism. And what is more, not only the fight against international terrorism, but also the prevention of international terrorism and the weapons of mass destruction finding each other. In other words: preventing terrorists from obtaining any weapons of mass destruction. In line with this, the American security policy will aim at trying to prevent these persons/groups all over the world from obtaining such capacity. This obviously means that the USA will continue not to exclude the possibility to reinterpret currently effective legal norms from national security considerations. Obama has also made a statement about this recently. He has declared that in case they receive a useful intelligence report on the location of wanted terrorists, and the state they are staying in does not take the necessary steps against them, then the USA will continue to reserve the right to violate the sovereignty of the country in question and make efforts to act against these persons/groups.

Which specific country or countries may have the new American president meant by that?

Obama has made this statement about Pakistan specifically. Thus it is quite clear in this issue as well that the security policy represented by Bush will not change considerably, the USA still regards prevention the most efficient tool in the fight against terrorism.

I suppose some changes can also be expected in security policy.

Naturally. The most important change may be that from now on, the United States of America does not want to solve the problems with the ’use of force’ in the first place; solutions by negotiation, and taking the necessary political-economic steps will be brought in the forefront instead – as emphasized by the new American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton at her hearing before the Senate. The Bush government, primarily in the first period, intended that military force played a bigger role.

The foreign policy of George W. Bush was also characterized by not having too good relations with Russia. Can any change be expected in this field?

In the past few days the news of Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev’s meeting in the near future was all over the media. The most importat question of this meeting will obviously be non-proliferaton, in other words the effacement and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and that of the rocket technology enabling their transport. In this issue the Americans expect close cooperation from the Russians. Mainly because Russian technology makes the nuclear programme of Iran possible and also assists it, which on the other hand is one of the most dangerous and most important issues of security policy/foreign policy in the eye of the Americans. When interpreting the issue of non-proliferation on a wider scale, it obviously involves the question of the rocket defence system to be set up in Europe as well. Obama has said earlier that they would not hurry with setting up the system in the Czech Republic and Poland, they would wait until the technology of these systems becomes ready for use. In return, they probably expect closer cooperation from Russia in the case of the supply lines crossing the country, heading to Afghanistan – in addition to other fields. Since last time General David Petraeus, the commander in chief of the troops in Afghanistan said that an agreement had been reached in this issue, but it has turned out that the Russians will not secure these supply lines. For the Americans this would be very important, since at the moment they transport supplies via Pakistan, which is very troublesome.

In the election campaign we have already mentioned, Obama has announced it several times that he would like to change the structure of the American military as well.

The inauguration of Obama took place on January 20, and as early as the following day, he took measures concerning security policy: he put an end to interrogations in the Guantanamo detention camp with immediate effect, and later he issued an instruction to close the camp in a year’s time. A few days later, regarding Iraq he announced that he ordered the military leaders to make further preparations for the withdrawal of troops. In other words, on his first working days he has already begun to implement the most important changes listed in his election campaign. In your opinion, was all this necessary since voters so to say expected them, therefore these steps had to be taken without any delay? Or is Obama so serious about discontinuing the politics of his predecessor?

Let us divide this question into two parts. Let’s see Iraq first. It is useful to recall the fact that the agreement on the withdrawal of American troops was born in the era of the Bush administration. And in line with that, the American troops must be withdrawn from Iraq until the end of 2011. As regards Iraq, neither does Barack Obama speak about withdrawing all the American soldiers from the desert country, the plan is to leave a maximum of 20 000-40 000 troops there. Naturally, not combat units but troops with training and security tasks. Therefore American presence will not cease in Iraq completely. And even these plans might change, depending on what the commander responsible for the area, that is General Petraeus we have mentioned earlier, suggests the president should do. Since Obama adds to each and every of his statements regarding Iraq: ’in case the situation will be like that, provided the advisors recommend it’.

And Guantanamo?

Naturally, the other cardinal question is Guantanamo, that has quite heavily eroded the image of the United States of America in the past years. The announcement of Obama to close down the detention camp in a year’s time was absolutely natural and it was so to say expected by everyone. Of course, the big question is what will happen to the more than two hundred people currently detained there? Since the majority of these people can be extradited to their county of origin, but at the same time it is not certain at all that these countries will indeed admit the individuals concerned. It is not certain that every country would be happy for these people to return to their territory, where they would cause a further headache for the countries in question. The other question is if the people who are currently detained in Guantanamo are brought to court – and as per the present situation, a few of them will certainly be brought to trial –, what sort of facts and evidences will they be able to use against them in the trial. Since if there really are evidences against them, then at the American open trials – in accordance with American legislation, everyone is entitled to an open trial and not just the citizens – some pieces of information could be heard that would be perfectly utilized by the ’enemy’ against the Americans. Thus hindering the fight against terrorism. The complicatedness of the situation is indicated by the fact that when Obama took over the presidential duties, he announced that the issue of Guantanamo is much more complex than he had thought in the beginning. My personal opinion is that the physical closure of the camp will be realized in a year, however, the future of the detainees will not be properly settled by then.

Having learned about all the abovementioned, the question arises: why did the new president have to make a decision regarding the Cuban detention camp so soon?

The answer is very simple: he was under a considerable domestic pressure since the majority of the democrat voters opted for this solution. Moreover, it also must be taken into consideration that Guantanamo is not a strategic issue of decisive importance as regards global policy, it is only a ’spectacular’ one. Although there is no doubt that the USA will be able to improve its shattered image significantly with the closure of the camp.

The other important factor of American security policy is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has highlighted it on more than occasion that instead of Iraq, he will put the emphasis on Afghanistan. But he has also said several times that he warns everybody not to expect a miracle from him, since the issue of Afghanistan cannot be solved in a short period of time. How do you see it: is there a realistic chance for settling this conflict during the four-year term?

To cite the famous saying of a famous American baseball player: “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future!". But switching back to a serious tone, it is very difficult to say what happens in four years’ time. Since all of us are aware that both the British Empire and the Soviet Union had failed in Afghanistan. There are basic differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, too, the society is quite fragmented but only three major groups can be differentiated: the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shi’a. On the other hand, in Afghanistan power changes by province, and here it is very difficult to create a common position. In addition to that there is oil in Iraq, on which a whole economy can be built, while Afghanistan has no ‘black gold’, 70 percent of the domestic income comes from opium production. Should they put an end to that, the subsistence of the people will be at risk. Therefore it is no wonder that in the areas where poppy fields have been destroyed the people turn very quickly to the radical groups, the Taliban, who guarantee a livelihood for them. It is a fact that there is a debate between the British and the Americans going on for years now about what should be done with the opium. The Americans would spray the entire poppy crop, but the British say that these people will then have nothing left, and this naturally means radicalization. Therefore it is a highly complex question and I believe it cannot be changed in four years; it will take a longer time. Of course, the new American government is also aware of this, and in my opinion the Obama administration is thinking in eight years. Perhaps in the second term some considerable results can be shown.

And what about Obama’s security policy for the Middle East? I suppose it was not by accident that Israel chose to announce ceasefire to end three weeks of operations against Hamas, on the very day the new president was inaugurated.

The date is perhaps a coincidence, perhaps it isn’t. However, it is a fact that in the opinion of the Israeli government, among the American leaders, it was the leaving president Bush who has been the most friend of Israel. The big question now is that to what extent will Obama change the policy of his predecessor. From what we have seen so far, it seems to me that we cannot expect a 180-degree turn. What does this opinion rely on? On the one hand: one of the key guidelines of American security policy will continue to be the refusal of negotiations with terrorists. Therefore until Hamas does not recognize Israel as a state, the USA will not sit down to a negotiating table directly with the Palestinian organization. Moreover, if we take a look at the advisors of the new president, we can see that the loosening of Israeli relations cannot be expected for all of them are pro-Israel. For instance the White House Chief of Staff used to fight as a volunteer of the Israeli army back in the 90s. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden are also very strongly committed to Israel. Besides all that, there are several other reasons which will make it very difficult to change America’s Israel policy. One of them for example is that the USA considers Israel the only democracy in the Middle East. The second one: the Israeli lobby plays a very important role in the United States of America. And perhaps the most important one: there are tens of millions of so-called Christian Zionists living in America, who may have nothing to do with Jewishness, but still they are considered a significant factor. For in the United States more than 90 percent of the population believe in God  or some kind of a supernatural creature , and there are tens of millions who are so-called fundamentalists, who believe what is written in the Bible ‘word by word’. Among others, they believe that the world is the theater of the fight between good and evil, and in the victory of good, the Jewish people have a decisive role. Therefore Jewish people have to be protected in order that the forces of the good should triumph. It has to be added for the sake of truth that the majority of Christian Zionists are Republican voters, but no Democrat government can ignore tens of millions of voters.

The other important Middle Eastern country  as regards the American point of view  is Iran. Bush had been ’hovering’ for a long time, once suggesting the outburst of a potential war, and on other occasions definitely denying the possibility of military intervention. After the change, what can be expected concerning Iran? Does Obama calculate with a potential Iranian ’front’?

My answer is short and firm: yes! Obama  similarly to his predecessor  has said several times that an Iranian nuclear bomb is unacceptable for America. The biggest problem regarding this is that if Iran had a nuclear bomb, the Sunni states  according to their own announcement  would launch their own nuclear programmes without delay, because the Iranian nuclear bomb would be a ‘PersianShi’a nuclear bomb’, which is unacceptable even for the Arab states since these countries are not happy either with Iran’s aspirations for power. In other words: an Iranian nuclear bomb may kick off a chain reaction in the area, and Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would make efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb, which may result in a more unstable situation in the region than the present one.

In recent years, it has become obvious that Africa belongs to the sphere of interest of the United States. Can any change be expected there compared to the security policy of Bush?

There are three reasons why Africa is interesting for the United States of America. Partly because of energy. And this is exactly why it is not a coincidence that Nigeria and other energy producing countries are extremely important for the USA. The essence of the American energy security strategy announced by Obama is that the USA would like to be energy independent from the ‘outer world’ in ten years. In practice, this would mean making the country independent from two areas, Venezuela and the Middle East. In all probability, America in the near future wants to purchase energy carriers from other areas  from Africa, for instance , and wants to utilize alternative sources of energy. Another important aspect of the growing value of Africa is the fight against terrorism, while the third one is the fight against AIDS and other dangerous infectious diseases. For the United States of America is afraid that worldwide epidemics may start out from Africa, and this is exactly why even the Bush government granted considerable amounts to fight these diseases. And neither does Obama plan to change anything in this issue. We must also see that Obama’s room for maneuver in foreign policy is greatly limited by the economic situation, therefore the ambitious targets outlined during the campaign tour cannot be implemented fully. It is a fact that in the coming years, Africa will be given a higher value to a certain extent, but it will not be a key priority. If I had to list the priorities then I would obviously mention the Middle East, the ‘broader’ Middle East, that is Iran and Iraq, Russia, China, and Latin America. The American policy for South America for instance is that in cooperation with moderate left wing systems  Chile, Brazil, Argentina  they take the wind out of the sails of the ChávezCastroMorales boat. It is natural that these priorities might change in the coming years, since if there is a very significant challenge emerging  like September 11 in the Bush era , the emphasis will be put on other areas and plans will be overwritten.

With a slight exaggeration it can be said that losing popularity is the destiny of every politician to come to power. Obama is very popular now in his own country and in other states as well. What can be expected, will he be able to maintain his popularity in the long run, or won’t he?

It is absolutely natural that he, too, will lose his popularity to some extent, and certain signs are visible even today. Since Obama won the presidential nomination against his own rival, the true manager-type Hillary Clinton, by painting an idealistic vision. But the average Americans, however, needed exactly these visions and such an inspiring person after the eight years marked by the name of Bush. And this has set very high standards, which have been raised even higher by the media publicity of the campaign. By now Obama has also realized that he cannot live up to these standards, therefore after his election, he gave more and more realistic speeches and his inaugural address  expected by everyone to be another Lincoln- or Kennedy-address  was a very reserved, sound speech emphasizing the difficulties in the first place. He tried to simmer down the emotions right there, but he did not really succeed, since what the media is interested in is exactly the conservation of the current situation. But in my opinion the emotions will simmer down soon, for the unemployment rates will not decrease, and the new president will not be able to implement either the reorganization of health care or the reform of tax policy for instance. Moreover, he will lose his popularity abroad as well, since he has to ask the allies for more troops soon, for example for the Afghanistan commitment. And he will do that indeed. The American voters and the world will also realize soon that American interests are continuous and have not changed. On January 20, a new world has not begun.