Meeting at Normandy:
President Obama's intentionally ambiguous foreign
policy will face a critical test
this week, when he meets for the first time
since Ukraine erupted, on the beaches of
Normandy, President Putin.
Mr. Obama's D-Day Option: Indifference or Interference? (Direct Matin, France)
"Against American wishes and due to the role played by the USSR in
defeating Nazism, the French president has invited Vladimir Putin [for the
anniversary of the D-Day landings]....
President Bashar al-Assad cannot be ignored, and
having analyzed that the U.S. response would be more words than action, this
undoubtedly encouraged Vladimir Putin to push his advantage in Ukraine by
seizing Crimea. And China? The new Chinese president is also moving his pawns
and is forging a strategic partnership with Russia. ... Only two years remain
of Obama's mandate to judge his capacity to accept the idea, as the saying
goes, that sometimes, 'indifference can be more dangerous than
interference."
President Obama bursts through Polish flags before delivering a speech on Freedom Day - when Poles celebrate one of the seminal events that broke the back of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe - the Polish elections of 1989.
On June 6, the anniversary of the D-Day
landings, heads of state of the Allies and Germany's chancellor will gather in
Normandy. Their very presence reminds us that despite the europhobes,
Europe is genuinely at peace! Against American wishes and due to the role
played by the USSR in defeating Nazism, the French president has invited
Vladimir Putin (with whom he will have to discuss Ukraine).
For Barack Obama, this is another opportunity
to pursue the new form of diplomatic advocacy he
outlined a few days ago in front of graduating cadets at the West Point
Military Academy. Strongly criticized in and out of the United States, it has
been presented and can be summarized quite simply: neither this nor that!
Neither interventionism nor isolationism. In the United States, at least as far
as public opinion, he is accused of not being sufficiently isolationist;
outside the U.S., his refusal to intervene is what is considered problematic.
Although no longer subject to re-election and
therefore in theory, free of electoral constraints, Barack Obama is thinking
primarily in terms of domestic policy. He was elected to end wars. His first
term saw the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. His second term will see the
complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. No one can blame the
American president for honoring his commitments. He has, however, drawn from
this another axiom, which goes a long way to explaining his wait-and-see
approach and caution on the most pressing recent issues: Libya, and currently
Syria: "Some of our most costly mistakes came not from
our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without
thinking through the consequences."
But equally, he has reiterated,
"isolationism is not an option." And the U.S. president explained
that the issue is not whether the United States should continue to play a
leadership role, but rather how it exercises it.
During Franco-British operations against
Qaddafi's Libya, he had already mentioned the concept of "leading from behind." That is to
say, plan B, which does not abandon action, but leaves it to the most local and
directly-affected countries to manage the front line. That is how the U.S. is
supporting French efforts in Mali and the Sahel. It is also how they are
encouraging Asian and southeast Asian countries to protect themselves against
China's appetite for influence and why they are helping the authorities in Kiev
financially. Obama has suggested further developing this strategy by asking
Congress to grant him $5 billion to help countries on the front line of the fight
against terrorism or secular and democratic forces within the Syrian opposition.
This coherent and sophisticated vision cannot
mask the more difficult observation: the refusal to intervene in Syria in a
timely fashion. President Bashar al-Assad cannot be ignored, and having
analyzed that the American response would be more words than action, this
undoubtedly encouraged Vladimir Putin to push his advantage in Ukraine by
seizing Crimea. And China? The new Chinese president is also moving his pawns
and is forging a strategic partnership with Russia. The Middle East? Benjamin
Netanyahu's intransigence has at no time been challenged. Which leaves Iran,
where there is hope of seeing genuine negotiation. Only two years remain of
Obama's mandate to judge his capacity to accept the idea, as the saying goes,
that sometimes, "indifference can be more dangerous than
interference."
Every
week, Jean-Marie -Colombani, co-founder and director
of Slate.fr, gives his free and objective assessment of the main news stories.
