The legacy of President Obama’s foreign policy

Former US President Barack Obama. PHOTO: AFP

In an article, ‘The Fraudulent Obama War on Corruption’, US politician Dr Ron Paul argued that Obama’s supposed war on graft had been a phony.

This, Obama’s critics might argue, could well be extended to his foreign policy decisions.
While I mostly agree with arguments made, my interpretation of some of Obama’s previous actions certainly differs.

First, many countries - especially in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean already bear the burden of being labelled a certain way.

This leaves them largely dismissed from key global conversations and issues. They are also hard-pressed and oppressed in ways that leave them with no voice and little or no options.

This pushes them further into the dark corners. If the goal is to give some form of relief to these countries and their governments from such labelling and allow them to come forth and make their case, then one cannot keep the focus on the same line or form of condemnation. As part of that, taking off aid without an alternative in cases where aid still plays a significant role, further reinforces that kind of condemnation and punishment.

It is important to mention that the role of aid in countries is an issue that is in review. However, the reference here is based on how aid has been structured in the past.

Secondly, in many cases, it was a matter of balancing the scales and figuring what weighs more. In the case of Afghanistan, the country has experienced years of war with the US having had a hand.

Where a country is seeking to re-emerge from war, would the weightier option be to focus on the corruption within a government or to give the country support that can help with basic rebuilding efforts or at least keep the country afloat?

Thirdly, giving this form of relief does not mean it absolves the countries or their governments from blame for any of the resulting actions. The extension of relief is only to allow these countries to have some seat at the table, something that rarely or never happened in the past. In reality, it is not that countries such as the US and others in the West do not have high levels of corruption.

The difference is that they mostly control the system, institutions and narrative that determined what happened especially in terms of investments, trade, foreign aid and even a country’s global standing.

That includes what happens with multinationals, foreign aid and institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Yet the US (and much of the West) still went around the world being judge and jury of who is corrupt, and what punishments to mete out, most of which go back to building the very oppressing, heavily biased and unbalanced system with which we began this reflection.

Fourthly, in many ways, some of the actions were a reminder that all countries and indeed all governments are faced with various challenges, with corruption remaining a key challenge. However, every country has an obligation and responsibility towards its citizens, the neglect of which has its set of consequences within every country.

The challenge is empowering countries to deal with their challenges, including corruption.

It would seem part of Obama’s agenda was to increase awareness and active participation from the citizenry and inviting the generation of tools and leverage among the different sectors to develop solutions for these challenges.

Finally, Obama is accused of having been overly lenient towards the US banking and financial industry. What is often overlooked is the deliberate effort to bring corporates to the table as key contributors to the economy.

Obama made these efforts, including the bail-outs with the expectation that they would in turn play a key role in revamping the economy for the American majority.