There's No Such Thing as a 'Reset' Button

President Obama needed to decide between shaping a new global order and leading the free world. He made the wrong choice.

BY JOSÉ MARÍA AZNAR | JUNE 22, 2010

Washington's foreign-policy circles clearly find it fashionable to talk about pressing the "reset" button on international relations. The impulse is understandable. Every new leader dreams of shaping a new era in his own image.

But the technological metaphors miss their mark. The world isn't a PC, much less a sleek and trendy iPad. America's search for a simple restart is destined to fail. The legacy of history resists being abandoned as easily as a software application is "exited." Only the naive can manage to think otherwise for very long.

Meanwhile, the world is waiting for Washington to acknowledge its strategic responsibilities. America's liberal and democratic ideals are the foundation of today's international order. Since World War II, the United States has been the world's defining ideological, economic, scientific, strategic, and cultural force.

Today, that order is under attack. First, there are the populist voices that have risen against our free market economy since the start of the current economic crisis. Their agenda is to alter our economic system -- they want to alter the consensus from limited state presence and individual risk-taking, to greater state intervention, more public authority, and less individual freedom.

The second threats are the rising nations that feel that the current distribution of world power is unjust. They respond by undermining the policies of those they consider to be their rivals. I'm referring primarily to Russia and China, but also to populist regimes like Hugo Chávez's Venezuela.

Third, there are the states and stateless forces that are trying to provoke a revolutionary change to the international system. Here, we can include nations like Iran and groups like al Qaeda.

The United States and its allies have all the tools at their disposal to defeat our shared enemies. Success will depend on three basic commitments: American leadership, a stronger Europe, and a common transatlantic vision.

Unfortunately, we have recently been witnessing the opposite: an internationally reluctant American president, a Europe which is mired in its own problems, and an eroded Atlantic bond.

It begins with the man in the Oval Office. When Barack Obama was elected, much of the world imagined that a change in attitude in the White House would translate into a closer and deeper relationship with Europe. Indeed, 80 percent of Europeans had said they would have voted for Obama had they been able to do so.

Those Europeans have watched as Obama has given special attention to Moscow and only a lukewarm reception to his closest allies. Today, the growing perception among European elites is that the U.S. president is not interested in Europe at all. Many of those elites instead believe that, as president, Obama is mainly concerned with improving America's image in the Muslim world.

Europe is concerned because America's new foreign policy seems to suggest a casual disregard of America's closest traditional allies. Europeans have closely been following America's friction -- if not yet open dispute -- with Israel, its staunchest ally in the Middle East. It's not that Europeans have suddenly become pro-Israel. It's because we feel it fits a larger pattern -- a pattern that is especially unsettling when seen in light of Washington's efforts to reach out to dubious regimes like Iran.

Of course, Europeans wouldn't be so concerned about Obama if they enjoyed stronger political leadership themselves. Unfortunately, Europe's material achievements of the past half-century have not translated into a greater ability to shoulder global responsibilities. In light of the economic crisis, that's not likely to change anytime soon. Europe will again be involved with solving its own parochial problems.

The persistent transatlantic tension has no doubt affected our common projects. Take Afghanistan, for instance. The European public has had a difficult time coping with the presence of European NATO troops, especially as the fight has intensified in recent years. European leaders should make a clearer case for the necessity of the fight against al Qaeda. But public doubts are also fueled by the fact that the United States is itself seemingly getting ready to leave.

American exhaustion is understandable. But it's still a mistake. Nobody is prepared to take America's place as leader of the free world. Those who defend the virtues of a multipolar world, in which the United States is just another country, will soon find themselves in a nonpolar universe that is spinning out of control. Russia will happily reclaim its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe; a nuclear Iran will become the new hegemon in the Persian Gulf; global jihadists will be emboldened. Meanwhile, a more economically reticent (or protectionist) America will endanger any short-term recovery of the global economy and give new impetus to the anti-capitalist axis that stretches from Beijing to Tehran to Caracas.

These risks are avoidable, but only if the West -- and Washington above all -- has a clear vision of what it wants to achieve. The first priority should be to recuperate trust in the economic system, without which sustainable growth is impossible. The answer for private indebtedness should not be to raise the level of public indebtedness. The world had enough of socialism in the 20th century. We must learn from those mistakes.

Second, we have to refurbish the cornerstone institutions of our transatlantic alliance, starting with NATO. The organization needs to adjust to the age of jihadi terrorism. I have long advocated for NATO to assume a transatlantic component of homeland security. Furthermore, NATO should open its doors to those democratic countries that are willing and able to make a contribution to collective security, from Japan to Israel.

Third, America and Europe need to strengthen their economic ties. It is time for a fully integrated, 100 percent barrier-free, transatlantic economy. European and American citizens would benefit from increased trade and investment, strengthened competition, and greater innovation.

Finally, we have to commit to defending our values. President George W. Bush's "freedom agenda" may have been unpopular, but it bore a central truth: America is the world's de facto defender of liberty.

America should be proud of its identity, as should its allies. On all the critical questions of modern life -- economics, education, justice, and culture -- it's the West that holds the flag of progress, freedom, and security. People from Manhattan to Kandahar, from California to Iran, are depending on us to hold that flag aloft. Obama's administration, whatever its talk of strategic "resets," would do well not to forget that.

Editor's note: This text is adapted from a speech, "Resetting the World," delivered by Mr. Aznar at the Transatlantic Center of the Johns Hopkins University.

Getty images

 SUBJECTS: EUROPE
 

José María Aznar is the former prime minister of Spain.

CAMAELJAX

6:54 PM ET

June 23, 2010

American Messianism

It is American messianist thinking like this - a delusional belief (known without an ounce of irony in the US as American Exceptionalism) that the United States as the paragon of fictional "free markets",(that never were, are, or will be "free") and managed dumbed-down "liberty" is the savior/overlord of the world, that makes resistance not only inevitable, but admirable - a self-fulfilling prophecy. What we have had enough of in the 20th century is universalism. We don't need or want an American messiah...the quickest way for humanity to commit either ecoside or mutual suicide (whichever come first) is for everyone to try to live the same souless materialist and ultimately unhappy and unfulfilling lifestyles as the locusts in America...

 

MALICEIT

7:17 PM ET

June 23, 2010

i agree.

i agree.

 

TBUSHMAN

2:01 AM ET

June 24, 2010

I don't.

I don't agree.
If we all think together, we'll soon be free.
We could start a green wave.
For a blackened ocean.
Who wants change?
I do. Y tu?

 

TBUSHMAN

2:05 AM ET

June 24, 2010

Join me

I don't bite
name's nawanda
I have messages
from the internets
on my facebook
where I write
and ponder
aloud.

 

TBUSHMAN

2:08 AM ET

June 24, 2010

....oh, and

I learned what I know
by reading everything
by watching everything
by listening to everyone.
I know wazup,
somewhat.
Like you.

 

MALICEIT

7:17 PM ET

June 23, 2010

RE:

"America is the world's de facto defender of liberty. " wow...like in Palestine? or in Tibet ? What about ongoing genocides in Africa ? I'm sorry dear, you are just another Republican. Might as well get in line with Glenn Beck...

 

TRUTH NOT PARTISAN

12:04 AM ET

June 24, 2010

Might as well get in line with Jimmy Carter....

First find me the liberty people are trying to defend in Gaza. Find me one free society in a muslim country. please? or will Gaza be the magical exception with those freedom, peaceful, non-religious affiliated party in power.
If it is the liberty to have honor-killings and execute opposing political factions go on ahead. To indoctrinate children into suicide bombers, sure.

 

MALICEIT

12:34 AM ET

June 24, 2010

@TRUTH NOT PARTISAN

Liberty people ? What about flotilla that got destroyed by Israelis ? Not free enough for you ? There are enough of free societies within Muslim world to write a book about. And on topic of religious non-affiliation: All US presidents were Christian (doesn't matter if its Catholicism or Protestant). Maybe liberty to stand up to a repressive and abusive power that tries to govern your land ? (Revolutionary War?) To indoctrinate children into red-white-n'-blue ?

 

YARMULKE

12:20 PM ET

June 24, 2010

De Facto Defender of Liberty

Well, you don't see anyone else doing much in the world. When was the last time Europe lifted a finger for Tibet?

As for Gaza, perhaps some day the Palestinians will desire things like statehood or freedom, rather than just killing non-Muslims. Until that day comes, as long as they use every freedom they have to kill their non-Muslim neighbors, (and Muslim neighbors, don't forget that Egypt is enforcing a blockade against Gaza for their own safety as well) then their neighbors will protect themselves by depriving them of said freedoms.

 

NORBOOSE

6:43 PM ET

June 24, 2010

Matter of perspective

America may not be a wonderful supporter of liberty, but have you seen our competition? America looks awful, untill you look at every single alternative. After that, America looks pretty damn good. All large groups are evil if judged by the moral standards of individuals. That point has been promoted by thinkers from at least the enlightenment all the way to MLK. Its even kind of acknowledged in the bible. When it comes to Palestine, the US has made some bad choices. However, you must acknowledge the complexity leading up to the current situation and how the US cant really do much now. As for Tibet, what could we do? If we go hog-wild on liberating Tibet, the Chinese would fight us. They have at least 500 nukes and enough biological WMD to kill the majority of the human population within a few months. Im pretty sure that any choice that leads to the destruction of human society is not the right thing to do.

 

MALICEIT

7:45 PM ET

June 24, 2010

RE:

Al Mezan Center for Human Rights.
No?

 

AMERICAN SON

10:37 PM ET

June 23, 2010

 

JJACKSON

3:27 PM ET

June 24, 2010

Has Aznar has been drinking the neo-con coolaid?

It is hard to believe this man was once elected by a European country.
It is also hard to know where to begin in countering this absurd article.
The only thing that is not hard to believe is he is now an executive at NewsCorp.

True there is no easy way to reset, in the sense of a clean break from past positions and the adoption of more rational ones, due to the inertia of the system and previous propaganda. Every country plays up the good points of its friends and ignores their failing, and vis-a-versa. To suddenly change tack and engage with Iran in the same way as the Saudis or Cuba like Columbia is not possible. This is not because they are not equivalents, and plenty of other countries see them as such, but because the environment within the United States is as it is after years of painting one black and the other white. The public are not ready to hear they are all grey and politicians can not sell that message, hence the inertia and the need prepare before change. That there is no reset button is the limit of my agreement, now the bits that had me wanting to scream at the computer.

"America's liberal and democratic ideals are the foundation of today's international order."
America is not a liberal democracy, this is a hangover from the days when it was interested in multilateralism and has not been true for decades. It is the reason that America has drifted away form its allies as it is now so different. There are no mainstream political parties in America that could even get a minority seat in a European Coalition government and even the British Conservatives would be miles too radical to get taken seriously in the US. The US says it likes democracy but in practice has always found it much easier to deal with a nice corrupt right-wing dictator whose primary interests were buying military hardware and topping up his Swiss bank account. It is a lot better for business than some messy socialist democracy. The US's 'close friends' in the Middle East have hardly been selected for their democratic credentials or Iran and Hamas would be well above Saudi Arabia.

Point two about other countries feeling the deck is stacked against them is true because it is true, the deck is stacked against them. The rules of the game were written by the powerful at the end of WW2. UN, IMF, World Bank, Global trade agreements, international law are all skewed in favour of the status quo. My country, the UK, and France are UN-SC P5 members with vetoes but would never be in this position if the rules were written today there is inertia in the system and the BRIC & G20 countries want, and deserve, a re-balancing.

Point three. AQ may want revolutionary change to the world system but they are not going to get it because there is not the popular support for their position. Iran has shown no great interest in changing the system, they had their revolution to get rid of a US imposed tyrant but it was an internal affair. Those who are trying to change the world are the US and some allies. They are doing so in Iraq and Afghanistan are threatening to do so in Iran. They are the only actors forcibly making changes.

"The United States and its allies have all the tools at their disposal to defeat our shared enemies. Success will depend on three basic commitments: American leadership, a stronger Europe, and a common transatlantic vision.
Unfortunately, we have recently been witnessing the opposite: an internationally reluctant American president, a Europe which is mired in its own problems, and an eroded Atlantic bond. "
The eroded bond is because the European public do not understand or agree with the US's penchant for enforced regime change. Snr. Aznar, along with Tony Blair, were among the strongest supporters of President Bush's invasion of Iraq but Snr.Aznar's Wikipedia page shows 92% of the Spanish public were against the attack. The European public think the French were right not the Americans and can not understand why so many followed Bush to war. Europeans would join America if it was going in the direction they want to go but if the US, and Snr. Aznar, which to lead us into some dodgy military adventurism they will have to go alone. The other point is who are these enemies? I am not the enemy of any state I do not like Zimbabwe, Myanmar or North Korea because of their treatment of their own people. I do not like the US, UK or Israel because they keep attacking other countries but none are my enemies and I would only be in favour of military deployments in support of humanitarian relief.

It is certainly true that Europeans thought America had completely taken leave of their senses during the Bush years and had very high hopes that Obama would help close the gap. The problem is on most key issues those hopes have been dashed. There is no discernible change with regard to actors in the Middle East. Turkey and Brazil's efforts to bring Iran in from the cold were torpedoed, attempts to curtail Israel's excess have been halfhearted, the drone attacks in Pakistan are still destabilising the country, breeding new radicals and destroying hopes that America would consider that international laws also apply to them. The jury is still out on Gitmo prisoners, human rights and encroachment on civil liberties (all that liberal democracy stuff) but giving up torture was a promising sign.

In the next section Aznar seems to think that Europeans are worried that the US is distancing itself from Israel and getting closer to Iran. Very strange, we would like both treated on their merits the US has not done anything about Israel's appalling behaviour and has never given Iran any benefit of the doubt or looked like it might try and normalise relations, I wish it would be more evenhanded. Europeans will fight AQ but that is not who we are fighting in Afghanistan which is why we want out. If there was any prospect of creating a viable peaceful nation state then the UN would get backing for humanitarian reasons but at present it is unclear if we are making matters better, or worse, or just making enemies indiscriminately. Regardless there is no justification for NATO being there, regime change in Asia is nowhere near their mandate.

NATO should be disbanded as its reason d'etre, the Warsaw Pact, no-longer exists. Japan is hardly a North Atlantic nation and whose acid-trip idea was adding Israel. This is not a country most European would want to go to war for , against maybe. If Israel comes to an equitable agreement with the Palestinians, stops killing civilians, signs up for the NPT and stops threatening other countries then we might consider EU or NATO membership, if that is what they wanted. At present I would rather have Iran.

 

NSC LONDON

8:54 AM ET

June 28, 2010

Muslim societies are free...

As long as you are a Muslim man and not a woman, a Christian, a homosexual, a Jew, a Hindu, etc. etc. etc. I'm amused by but accustomed to the deafening silence that always follows when a non-Muslim asks as a Muslim to defend these glittering, free societies that supposedly exist all over the Muslim world.

To the bitter little college lad who said this: "everyone to try to live the same souless materialist and ultimately unhappy and unfulfilling lifestyles as the locusts in America..." Child, when and if you're able to experience more of the world, get back to us, I think you'll find you have a revised perspective on what true "unhappiness" actually is, and I think you'll find relatively little of it in the US.

 

CAMAELJAX

11:32 AM ET

June 29, 2010

Substance and Happiness Falling

What I really love about FP's blog is that everyone (NSC London) rises above the petty personal attacks on strangers that you find on other less mature sites and concentrates on the substance and quality of debate.

FYI "this bitter little college lad" has seen over a decade of US mlitary service around the world, and that was before the last near decade living abroad (in Russia and the UK),and so is very likely more knowledgable about both life in the the US (through actual national service), its empire abroad, and the rest of the world than you. Not that that should matter to the topic at hand. But thank you for discrediting your own argument with this kind of childishness.

FYI Despite greater wealth, energy use, more needless consumption as a substitute for identity, national power, and obesity than anywhere else in the world and than every before - happiness has fallen in the US (and UK) consistently since the 1940's. It's that little problem of the failure of materialism to improve the "human condition" and of ever rising expectations in individualist capitalist societies based on consumption. It seems that you cannot buy happiness after all...Not to mention committing mass ecocide while doing it...

"The proportion of people saying they are "very happy" has fallen from 52% in 1957 to just 36% today.

The opinion poll by GfK NOP for The Happiness Formula series on BBC Two provides the first evidence that Britain's happiness levels are declining - a trend already well documented in the United States.

Polling data from Gallup throughout the 1950s shows happiness levels above what they are today, suggesting that our extra wealth has not brought extra well-being.

It could even be making matters worse.

The British experience mirrors data from America, where social scientists have seen levels of life satisfaction gradually decline over the last quarter of a century.

Happiness levels were higher in post-war Britain
In the early 1970s, 34% of those interviewed in the General Social Survey described themselves as "very happy".

By the late 1990s, the figure was 30% - a small but statistically significant drop.

The story of wealth failing to translate into extra happiness is the story of the Western world."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4771908.stm

Research Data: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_06_happiness_gfkpoll.pdf

 

ALS07

2:45 AM ET

June 29, 2010

A terrible dream Russia

"Russia will happily reclaim its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe"

A terrible dream Russia - she returned himself the influence in Eastern Europe and again delivers oil and gas at cheaper price.

 

NSC LONDON

11:59 AM ET

June 29, 2010

Read and learn youngster...

Ah, how cuuuute, he’s come armed with a few figures in a vacuum and a whole lot of assumptions. Two of the major assumptions you’re making are, 1) materialism is the source of increasing unhappiness, and 2) unhappiness actually exists. The peculiarities of survey research... have you actually measured declining happiness or are western societies less likely to use the top ends of a questionnaire scale? Can you even define “happiness?” Was “happiness” clearly defined for respondents in the survey? People outside of research tend to follow these cheap stats off a cliff. For instance, you point to declines in supposed “happiness” in one study, but the US 23rd out of 178 countries in the global subjective well being index (2006), all of the top 20 with one exception are developed nations who seem to have bought into the evils of “materialism” (gasp!!!). So, it would seem that comparatively, this horrible “materialism” would actually tend to support happiness, while lack of infrastructure and wealth inhibit happiness. What a shocking conclusion!

Whether or not you actually are a career US military man remains to be seen. That’s the beauty of the internet, you can sound every bit the wet-behind-the-ears catastrophising little punk but claim to be a highly credible source, who knows!

 

NSC LONDON

1:20 PM ET

July 2, 2010

Where'd you go Cameljockey?

Cat got your tongue?