John E. Reilly speak at AUP about Obama's Foreign Policy: A New Beginning or Bush II

Today John E. Reilly came to the American University of Paris to speak to a packed room, attendees included Ambassador Pierre Vimont who is the French ambassador to the United States and his wife. There are many ways to open up a talk and endear yourself to the audience. Reilly chose humor, opening with two Palin jokes. (The following is heavily paraphrased) My condolences go out to Mrs. Palin, her library burned down, and with it her two books, one of which she hadn't even finished coloring. Second joke, When asked what would you do if Russia were to attack Georgia she answered: We would have to at least protect Atlanta.

I love humor, and who does not love a good Palin joke. It was the last joke he told this evening. He quickly moved on to more serious matters. First, he admitted that some Obama policies were indeed continuations of Bush policies, and in my opinion most US presidents since WWII. According to Reilly, Obama does not intend to scale back on our overseas commitments or close any American bases; in fact, he intends to increase our troop levels. However, Reilly notes that when it comes to climate change, torture, extraordinary renditions, the closure of Gitmo, multilateralism and the role of the United Nations there has been a significant departure from the Bush years.

Reilly contends that in foreign policy Obama has shown a willingness to engage with countries formally part of the "axis of evil", such as Syria, North Korea and Cuba. He has shied away from expressions like the "War on Terror" and "Islamic extremists" and opposes military action against Iran by the United States or Israel. Reilly stated that Obama finds the prospect of war with Iran as the worst possible outcome, including a nuclear armed Iran. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record proposing a nuclear umbrella" for the Middle East. Reilly notes that in her visit to China Secretary of State Clinton did not lecture China on human rights. A shift that reflects the fact that the US model does not resonate with all peoples and that political legitimacy can be achieved without democracy.

According to Reilly, Obama is not denying the threat of terrorism; however, is attempting to put the threat in context. Reilly makes an interesting observation that Russia is the only power on earth with the capability to completely annihilate the United States; yet the United States continues to encircle Russia and extend Nato deeper into Russia's backyard with its support for Ukrainian and Georgian membership. Reilly notes that the United States is weary of Russian reassertion in its former sphere and ignoring the areas of Russian and American interests; nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

Reilly does admit that Obama is continuing certain Bush policies; including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and missile attacks near or inside the Pakistani border. Reilly also believes that Obama has not learned the lessons and perils of nation-building. He points out that in US history there have been 18 attempts at nation building, mostly ending in failure. Germany and Japan being exceptions, these are not classic cases of nation buildings, but were as Reilly states re-legitimizing preexisting institutions. According to Reilly the United States finances its military but not the groups trained in nation building. Therefore after invading a country the US depends heavily on its military to rebuild and therefore fails.

Reilly continues his discussion on the nation building practices of the British in the days of empires and concludes that Americans do not have the stomach for nation building. Reilly illustrates this point by describing how the British built nations once the military had defeated the native populations. The civilian administrators would be brought in and they were the ones who ruled the country and built the road and schools. These civilians often lived in these countries for 20 or more years with their families and eventually retired there. Americans, on the other hand, do not accept that the United States is an empire, and have little desire to live in what Reilly calls "hot and smelly places". He notes that about 1.3% of Americans live outside of the United States and among them 75% live in either Europe, Canada or Mexico.

Despite the American people's lack of will to build nations, the country continues on this path. The idea of American exceptionalism and the believe that the US has a moral imperative to interfere in the world could be behind these projects. Reilly admits that it amounts to heresy in the United States to say that America is not exceptional with a moral right and obligation to interfere in other countries. Despite the fact the world does not perceive this view as legitimate and our [overwhelming] incompetence in nation building belies this assertion; Reilly believes this view is still alive and possibly influencing Obama's foreign policy in addition to a belief that the United States is immune to imperial overstretch.

It is important to note that Reilly sees a very important distinction between the Bush approach to foreign policy decision and Obama's. He notes that the Iraq war was not debated within the administration, but rather discussed between those who were already on board. This included Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and of course Cheney. However Obama has a taken a different approach, consulting with his advisers and government agencies to debate foreign policy decisions. He also avoids lecturing other nations while admitting past US mistakes as he tries to avoid [additional] interference is foreign countries internal affairs, i.e. the Iran protests after their recent elections.

I found John E. Reilly's description of the Obama administrations nascent foreign policy convincing. One attendee wondered if domestic issues would reduce US legitimacy internationally. Reilly's response was that presidents tend to aim high in their first nine months, but the timing could not have been worse for Obama; inheriting two wars, a financial crash, a recession, bailouts and huge deficits. However, he believed that the United States domestic woes were not affecting foreign policy or foreign opinion. Another attendee felt that Reilly's talk really underscored the similarities of the Bush and Obama policies and Obama's lip service to change. He wondered if what we were really witnessing was Obama doing a better job of selling Bush's foreign policy.

Though I did not get a chance to ask a question, I wondered if the Obama honeymoon around the world and especially in Europe has an expiration date, like it seems to have in the United States where his poll ratings are allegedly slipping. Considering some major shifts in policy important parts of W's foreign policy are intact; therefore, what would it take to make Europeans and the rest of the world really scrutinize Obama's foreign policy positions?

John E. Reilly's Bibliography
John E. Rielly is currently President Emeritus of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations; Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University; and Visiting Professor, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Mr. Rielly was President of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations from 1971 to 2001. From 1963 to 69 he was the Foreign Policy Assistant to Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Mr. Rielly received his Phd from Harvard. He is on the editorial Board of Foreign Policy, and served for six editions (1975-1999) as editor for American Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy. He is a consultant for the National Security Council. In addition, he is a board member of the Harvard Alumni Association, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, American Ditchley Foundation and American Council on Germany.