He came, he spoke, and not much changed

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 1:12 PM Share

I don't disagree with Steve Walt's read of Obama's Ankara speech (see Marc Lynch as well), or other hosannahs being heaped on Obama for his European tour. Barack Obama acquitted himself well in London, Strasbourg, Prague and Ankara. U.S. soft power would appear to be in a better place than it was, say, a year ago.

Does it mean anything, however? I also don't disagree with Gideon Rachman's analysis of Obama's trip in the Financial Times:

On many levels, the new US president’s first tour of Europe was indeed a triumph. Mr Obama was articulate, ambitious and charming. His personal style has a touch of the emperor and a touch of the rock star – but with an appealing humility that is common to neither profession....
So Mr Obama scored very highly for style and ambition on his European tour. But can he deliver the substance? Here, the verdict has to be much more doubtful – for reasons that have more to do with the sheer difficulty of the situation he has inherited, rather than any particular failings on the part of the new president....
The new American president faces an economic disaster at home, a stalemated war in Afghanistan, unpredictable adversaries in places such as North Korea, and largely unhelpful allies in Europe. This week Mr Obama cemented the impression that he is an unusually gifted and intelligent politician. But that does not mean he will succeed. It could just be that he is the right man at the wrong time.

If there's any good news, it's that, after reading Arms Control Wonk, the North Koreans look more and more like an irritant rather than a threat.

Question to readers: will Obama's trip pay any long-term policy dividends?

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, OBAMA, SOFT POWER

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BLUE13326

10:35 PM ET

April 7, 2009

Well, it's good that he

Well, it's good that he didn't give away the store at the G20.

But, I think the long-term policy dividends were best summed up by Mark Steyn:

'It’s not just embarassing to hear the so-called “leader of the free world” talking like a 14-year old who’s been up in his room listening to “Imagine” for too long. I fear this presidency has the makings of global tragedy.'

PAUL BRAZEAU

7:53 PM ET

April 8, 2009

George Friedman's take

I get a weekly "Geopolitical Intelligence Report" from Stratfor. This week George Friedman reported on the G-20 and made a pretty compelling case that beyond the soft stuff with Europe, Obama's "deeper game" was with Turkey. Here are two intersting paragraphs:

"The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner."

I'd be really interested to know what you and Walt make of that argument.