AbstractThe U.S President has demonstrated a skeptical attitude towards the U.S Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. According to Obama, the United States does not have substantial interests in the Middle East and has strongly intimated that its chief interests lie in most of the Asian countries, particularly China (Makram 2016). The paper endeavors to analyze a multiplicity of issues that revolve around the Obama doctrine. Primarily, it will provide a precise argument on whether the current presidential candidates will adopt Obama’s foreign policy principles. Further, it will highlight the effects of the Obama doctrine on the Middle East and the approaches that the Middle East should adopt to rebuff its effects.
After being sworn in on 20 January 2009, many political commentators began to speculate that a distinct Obama doctrine was imminent. The proposal to close the U.S detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, the reconciliation with Russia, and the rejection of the popular phrase “Global War on Terror” were signs of Obama’s conservative revolutionary paradigm (Krauthammer 2011). The doctrine refers to the foreign policy principles of the incumbent president of the United States, Barack Obama. The Obama doctrine is not precisely defined like the Bush or Monroe doctrines. However, the Obama doctrine is premised on idea global collaboration and negotiation rather that unilateralism and confrontation in international affairs.
Whether Hillary or Trump can Adopt Obama’s Foreign Policy
In my opinion, if Hillary Clinton is elected as the next president of the U.S, she will embrace Obama’s foreign policy that favors negotiations and global cooperation in international affairs albeit with modifications. Fundamentally, she has endorsed most of the Obama’s foreign policies during her tenure in the Office of the Secretary State. For instance, between 2009 and 2013 while serving in Obama’s administration, Clinton responded to the Arab Spring and advocated for the involvement of U.S military in Libya. Besides, she helped to organize for international sanctions and diplomatic isolation against Iran in efforts to curtail the country’s nuclear power program. The two examples support the proposition that Clinton will embrace Obama’s foreign policies if elected (Lieven 2016). On the other hand, Trump has always opposed Obama’s foreign policies; thus, it is definite that he would not embrace his principles. Trump is a radical who will favor confrontation if negotiation or diplomatic approaches seem not to deliver the solution he pursues. Notably, he has extreme views on the emotive issue of terrorism and U.S trade agreements with China.
How the Middle East can prepare for the New Term in the US Foreign Policy
Regardless of the presidential candidate who will win the 2016 elections, the U.S foreign policies on matters of trade, terrorism, and international security are likely to remain intact. Consequently, the Middle East (Arab Countries) will continue to be ignored as the next regime concentrate on strengthening its relations with Asia. In the Obama’s doctrine, Asia is the continent that can deliver more promise that the Middle East. The reason the U.S has avoided the Middle East is that it is viewed as a negligent economic bloc that is likely to export terrorism into the US.
Further, the Middle East countries can adopt a number of strategies to prepare the new term in the US foreign policies. Ideally, the preparation may aim at either addressing the increased isolation or regaining the trust of the U.S (Chomsky, et al. 2015). Foremost, to ensure that the snub by the U.S in the purview of trade does not affect their economies, they should adopt protectionism in their economic policies. Notably, protectionist policies will ensure that the U.S cannot acquire valuable raw materials, for instance, oil from the Middle Eastern countries and decrease their trade deficits. Moreover, the Middle East needs to resort to regional integration approaches to shape their political and economic dimensions. Regional integration will help to remove the existing barriers to free trade, reduce regional armed conflicts and increase the versatility of factors of production. If the Middle East countries want to restore its trade and political relations with the US, they have to institute stringent measures that affirm real desire to fight terrorism which has made it lose most of its trade partners across the globe.
All in all, the Middle East countries face an uphill task in their efforts of restoring relations with the U.S or strengthening their political and economic policies to cement their places in the international trade and political arenas. They have to resort to policies that focus on eliminating terrorism and anarchy since the two tragedies have tarnished their images in the international community.
- Chomsky, N, Gilbert, A & Stephan, S 2015, Perilous power: The Middle East and US foreign policy dialogues on terror, democracy, war, and justice. s.l.:Routledge .
- Krauthammer, C 2011, The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind. Washington Post, Volume 28.
- Lieven, A 2016, Clinton and Trump: Two faces of American nationalism. Survival, 58(2), pp. 7-22.
- Makram, M 2016, Geopolitics. s.l.:s.n.