Grading Obama's Moscow speech

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 2:01 PM Share

President Obama gave a speech today in Moscow outlining his view of the Russian-American relationship. This was the part that stuck in my academic IR craw:

There is the 20th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another.
These assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over. As I said in Cairo, given our independence, any world order that -- given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game -- progress must be shared. (emphasis added)

If he had said, "The pursuit of prosperity is no longer a zero-sum game," I'd be fine with the passage. I still think power is a zero-sum concept, however. The two ideas are linked but hardly the same.

Obama is hardly the first president to mangle IR concepts in his speeches -- remember "a balance of power that favors freedom"?

Still, I hope that's a rhetorical flourish rather than a genuine belief of the administraion.

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY, OBAMA, RUSSIA

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BILL HARSHAW

4:57 PM ET

July 7, 2009

Definition of "Power"

I'm curious how far you would push this. Is "soft power" a zero sum game as well as "power"? Is power independent of the size of the actors? For example, as nations grow, or shrink, does that change their power? If you have economic prosperity as non-zero sum and power as zero sum, what happens at the intersection of the two--for example, trade protectionism?

BUZZ KILLINGTON

11:16 AM ET

July 8, 2009

Well, Obama has made it

Well, Obama has made it pretty clear that he does think the pursuit of prosperity is a zero-sum game, at least in terms of individuals. So he probably meant what he said.

RDLPQ

11:43 AM ET

July 8, 2009

Amnesia

Dan,
I find this part of Obama's speech even more troubling than the part you cited:

"There is the 20th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another."

Russia and America were not antagonists through the whole of the 20th Century. The World War 11 alliance turned to antagonism because of Stalin's actions in Eastern Europe. The antagonism ended when the Berlin Wall came down.

Implicit in Obama's statement is the idea that, if only both sides saw things in terms of a 21st century approach, their relations would improve. Given Russia's tendency to want to carve out a sphere of interest in its near-abroad ,that seems a bit of a stretch.

CREON CRITIC

2:12 AM ET

July 9, 2009

Pooling sovereignty

Maybe Obama was suggesting the growing importance of pooling sovereignty. Institutions like the EU are pretty difficult to fit into the power as zero-sum game rubric. Beyond the EU, there are a whole range of public goods (e.g. public health) where employing realist conceptions of power politics fails.
Altogether, a more sustainable order can be created under the architecture Obama is suggesting – in that a wider group of participants view outcomes as legitimate.

I also think people like Martha Finnemore and Alexander Wendt would push back against the idea that Obama’s mangling IR theory/concepts here.

STIENNON

3:29 PM ET

July 9, 2009

Thanks for the insight

Appreciate your comment. Had not thought of that. Power is indeed a zero sum game. Maybe there is a little inflation as the world gains in population and discovered resources (things to have power over)but at any point there is only so much power to go around and one party's gain is the other's loss.