OBAMA DIDN'T DISCOVER AMERICA

US President Barack Obama's speech at a graduation ceremony at the West Point Military Academy could be regarded as a statement defining Washington's foreign-political course for the next two and a half years: in other words, until the end of his presidential term.

This kind of speech by the country's leader at the military academy has become a tradition, aimed at a wide audience, political opponents and supporters, as well as the international community. Specifically, it was within the walls of this academy that the 40th president of the USA described the USSR as "an empire of evil" which began the "Cold War". Here, in his speech to the graduates, President George Bush, junior, proposed the general plan of Washington's foreign policy which in 2002 formed the basis of the concept of a preventive war.

Unlike his Republican predecessors, who were noted for their tough rhetoric, the statement by a Democrat and Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama will be remembered for its abundance of arguments and suppositions. They provide for the use of "soft power" in the system of international relations and a search for a balanced and sound compromise between two opposing approaches in US foreign policy - interventionism and isolationism.

There were four key components in the US president's speech: 1) military intervention in the internal affairs of other states; 2) non-military intervention with the use of alternative instruments of influence (diplomacy, grants, sanctions and instruments of international and regional organizations) on events in various countries; 3) the war against terrorism and 4) the USA's global leadership.

Obama pointed out Washington's exclusive role and great success in promoting the western model of democracy and values, as well as in the war against international terrorism in the last two decades. However, he noted that a military response cannot be the only or even primary component of the US' leadership in the world arena. Obama claimed that just because Washington has the best hammer in the world it doesn't mean every problem is a nail. Even despite the fact that, in relation to the rest of the world, when it comes to military-economic might, the US has rarely in its history been stronger than it is today. 

The US president explains this policy by two basic factors that arose from the experience and blunders of the White House in Iraq and Afghanistan. First, the strategy demanding intervention in any countries where terrorist organizations are hiding is not only naive and impractical, but ineffective because of the substantial losses among the military and the huge financial resources. That is precisely why Washington intends in the future to avoid unilateral military intervention in any country if this does not directly threaten the national interests of the US and its citizens, the means of existence of the American state and its allies. But this does not mean that Washington intends to keep itself aloof from international problems, preferring a policy of isolationism. It is just that American presence and intervention in individual countries and regions will be carried out through representatives of the third sector and sponsor funds for the development and strengthening of democratic institutions, "America's friends", as they are described in Washington, in order to avoid serious military and financial losses. Although, Obama admitted, such intervention (for example in Libya and Egypt) cannot provide the people of those countries with civil freedoms, democratic elections and values.

The attainment of a western model of democracy mainly depends not only on the governments of these countries, but also on ordinary people who support this model. Essentially, Obama's statement at West Point revealed nothing original. All these matters are fixed in the strategy of US' national security which was published back in May 2010. This also affects the argument about the US' exclusive role and leadership in the international arena: "I am convinced: America must lead in the world arena. If we don't, no-one else will…I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being."

Such a claim shows that the US has no intention of permitting the formation of any other centre of power which could undertake the establishment and preservation of the new world order. In other words, Washington has no intention whatever of giving up its role of leader in a unipolar world which it established after the end of the "Cold War", and will harshly thwart all attempts to create at least a bipolar geopolitical model.

Following the traditions of his predecessors (Ronald Reagan and George Bush, junior), in his speech Obama did not ignore those countries whose strengthening economically and military-politically could pose a threat to US' national interests by waging a tough competitive battle. Their strengthening and their actions are a big worry to Washington and Europe. "Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, and China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbours. A rising middle class from Brazil to India is competing with us and their governments are striving to increase their role in the international arena," the US president said.

So, at the West Point Military Academy, Obama clearly defined the foreign political front of the struggle in the short term: a) Russia, by instigating and fiercely carrying out integration projects in the post-Soviet space; b) China, developing dynamically both military and economically, recently concluding a gas contract of large dimensions with Russia and strengthening its positions in the Asia-Pacific region.

At the same time, China is making territorial claims on Washington's traditional allies. It was precisely these two countries that recently announced their intention to reject American currency in their bilateral trade deals and are seriously challenging the US' world leadership. And Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke openly about this last month at a plenary session of the SPIEF [St.Petersburg International Economic Forum]:  "The unipolar vision of the world order has failed and today it is obvious to everybody, including those who try to live in the past, and maintain a monopoly, dictate their rules in politics, trade and finance and impose cultural and behavioural standards."

It may well be that Obama's speech at West Point was a kind of response to Putin's statement, considering the satisfaction with which the US president noted the international pressure which, thanks to Washington's policy, Moscow has faced over the events in Ukraine: "The recent events in Ukraine recall those days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But these are not the times of the Cold War. Our ability to shape public opinion helped us to isolate Russia straightaway. Thanks to America's leadership, the world immediately condemned Russia's actions. Europe and the 'G7' have jointly imposed sanctions."

To be frank, the claims about Russia's isolation and the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed against it are causing scepticism among serious analysts. Because even the US' European allies, who are closely linked with Russia economically, are not burning with desire to follow the lead of Washington's policy. Moreover, the leading European countries are unhappy that the US is treating a united Europe like a political dwarf, even indulging in tapping the telephone conversations of the leaders of the allied countries under the pretext of an effective struggle against international terrorism. Incidentally, in trying to sweeten this bitter pill, at West Point the US president urged his country's intelligence community to maximum openness: "Our intelligence community has done outstanding work and we must continue to protect sources and methods. But when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly we face terrorist propaganda, attract the suspicion of neighbours, erode legitimacy with our partners and our people and reduce accountability in our government." He said that the problem of transparency is directly linked with America's world leadership, just as is the observation of international legal norms. 

You must admit that for the moment US' foreign policy cannot particularly boast about observing these rules. It is more the other way round.  Right now it is only the principle of American patronage on a world scale which, in the opinion of the US, no-one has the right to dispute, which is more than obviously dominant in Washington's policy. This argument also ran like a common thread during Obama's speech at West Point. He made it clear that the right to call any problem their nail is the exclusive prerogative of the US which, he said, has the best hammer.