The Obama Doctrine is used to describe one or several principles of the foreign policy of the Obama administration. In 2015, during an interview with The New York Times, President Barack Obama said: "You asked about an Obama doctrine, the doctrine is we will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities".
Unlike precisely defined policies such as the Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, Kennedy Doctrine, Nixon Doctrine, Carter Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine, or Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is not a specific foreign policy introduced by the executive. This has led journalists and political commentators to analyze what the exact tenets of an Obama Doctrine might look like. Generally speaking, it is widely accepted that a central part of such a doctrine would emphasize negotiation and collaboration rather than confrontation and unilateralism in international affairs. This policy was praised by some as a welcome change from the interventionist Bush Doctrine.
Critics of Obama's unilateral policies (such as targeted killings of suspected enemies of the U.S.) including former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, have described it as overly idealistic and naïve, promoting appeasement of adversaries. Others have drawn attention to its radical departure in tone from not only the policies of the Bush administration but many former presidents as well. Some trace the origin of the Obama Doctrine to a speech he delivered at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York in May 2014, where he asserted that the "United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it," but for indirect threats or humanitarian crises, "we must mobilize partners to take collective action." This doctrine of "moral multilateralism," some argue, reflects Obama's interest in philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr, who supported an interventionist U.S. foreign policy but warned against hubris and moral misjudgment.
Pre-presidency
The term "Obama Doctrine" was used before the start of Obama's presidency, while he was still only a candidate in the Democratic primaries. In an article in The Providence Journal from August 28, 2007, James Kirchick used the term in a derogatory sense, and argued that the Obama Doctrine could be summarized as: "The United States will remain impassive in the face of genocide." This critique was based on an interview Obama had given to the Associated Press on July 21, where he said that "the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems" and that "preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." Hilary Bok, guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic's The Daily Dish, refuted Kirchick's representation of Obama's foreign policy views as a distortion. Bok pointed to Obama's use of anti-genocide activist Samantha Power as a political advisor, and to several interviews the candidate had given expressing concern for the situation in Darfur and elsewhere. Later, in a presidential debate with Senator John McCain, Obama stated that the U.S. occasionally would have to "consider it as part of our interests" to carry out humanitarian interventions.
Later in the campaign, when asked the question about himself at one of the Democratic presidential debates in March, Obama answered that his doctrine was "not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush doctrine, because the world is complicated." He added that the U.S. would have to "view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries." Later, this doctrine was elaborated on as "a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering 'democracy promotion' agenda in favor of 'dignity promotion,'" that would target the conditions that promoted anti-Americanism and prevented democracy. This policy was quickly criticized by Dean Barnett of The Weekly Standard as naïve. Barnett argued that it was not a "climate of fear" that lay behind Islamic extremism, but "something more malicious".
Then-President George W. Bush, in a May 2008 speech at the Knesset, likened direct negotiations with Iran, or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, to attempts at "appeasement" of Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. The comments were interpreted by some in the media and by Obama himself as a direct criticism of Obama. Obama called the comments "a false political attack", and added that "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists," while Senator Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, said that Bush's comments were "demeaning to the presidency of the United States of America". Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, pressed for a clarification, stated that Bush's comments were "not specifically pointed to one individual," and that "all of you who cover these issues ... have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations".Bush's Hitler remarks single-out no 'one' , Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune "The Swamp" blog, May 15, 2008
In 2008, the term "Obama Doctrine" was used by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times in a comment on a speech given by then-Senator Obama at the Woodrow Wilson Center on July 15. Here, Obama listed the five pillars of his foreign policy, should he be elected:
Sweet pointed out that these ideas were a reiteration of the essay "Renewing American Leadership," that Obama had written for Foreign Affairs magazine in the summer of 2007.
As president
Not long after Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009, commentators began to speculate on the emergence of a distinct Obama Doctrine in action. A proposal to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, the rejection of the phrase "Global War on Terror", and the reconciliation with Russia through the abandonment of the anti-ballistic missile program in Poland and the Czech Republic, were taken as clear signs of a reversal of the principles of the Bush administration. Critics, such as Pat Buchanan, quickly derided these policies and criticized them for weakening the United States' foreign relations. In an op-ed, Buchanan argued that Obama was "ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it."
In early April 2009, American journalist Marc Ambinder predicted that the president, with time, would have to take a more pragmatic stance on the legal status of detainees. Meanwhile, professor of international politics Daniel W. Drezner suggested the Obama Doctrine was influenced by French philosopher Montesquieu, whose thinking, in Drezner's words, could be crudely summarised, "useless conflicts weaken necessary conflicts." In Drezner's interpretation, the Obama Doctrine was to abandon foreign policies that had proven fruitless and unpopular to focus on more important and pressing issues. On April 16, E. J. Dionne wrote a column for The Washington Post expressing a highly positive view of what he saw as the Obama Doctrine. The column came in the direct aftermath of the successful rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates. He defined the doctrine as "a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self-awareness." Dionne also pointed to the influence Reinhold Niebuhr has on Obama, and quoted Niebuhr's warning that some of "the greatest perils to democracy arise from the fanaticism of moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of self-interest" and that a "nation with an inordinate degree of political power is doubly tempted to exceed the bounds of historical possibilities."
Later that month, at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, Obama was again asked the question he was asked during the campaign, of defining the Obama Doctrine. The president replied that "the United States remains the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth, but we're only one nation, and that the problems that we confront, whether it's drug cartels, climate change, terrorism, you name it, can't be solved just by one country." In addition, Obama expressed a desire for the U.S. to seek friendship with all, harkening back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy. "I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations," he said. "There is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values." Political policy analysts such as Ray Walser lamented this stance, arguing that portraying America as "equal" among the nations of the world would reduce its global stature.
Obama later elaborated on his foreign policy views, particularly relating to Muslim countries, in a high-profile speech given at Cairo University in June, where he called for reform of undemocratic countries from within. Obama's efforts to improve foreign relations received praise even from former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Meanwhile, foreign policy analyst Reginald Dale, believed the president's policy of reconciliation had weakened the country in relation to other countries, such as Russia, China, and North Korea. The even-handed treatment of all countries was also critiqued by some conservative critics, noting in particular that in calling for all nuclear weapons to be turned aside Obama had placed U.S. and Israeli nuclear programs on the same moral level as Iran's alleged weapons plans. There was also concern that Obama did not specifically identify terrorists as a common risk to the United States and the Middle East. Others criticized Obama for the lack of a well-defined doctrine. American journalist Charles Krauthammer said that "I would say his vision of the world appears to me to be so naïve that I am not even sure he's able to develop a doctrine." Anders Stephanson, professor of history at Columbia University, coming from a different perspective, argued that an overly pragmatic foreign policy and the absence of an overarching ideology could facilitate the return of a simplified American exceptionalism policy at a later point.
The question of the Obama Doctrine once more came to the fore in connection with his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, Norway in December 2009. The awarding of the peace prize drew a mixture of praise and criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. Obama took the opportunity of the speech to address some of this criticism, and argue for the occasional use of force in international relations. "To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason," he said. According to John Dickerson of Slate, the president silenced his conservative critics who have labelled him as weak, while maintaining an insistence on diplomatic engagement. The speech was generally well received, and was praised by conservative figures in American politics, including Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and John Boehner.
Following the February 2011 revolution in Egypt, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson argued that Obama's strategic thinking failed to understand the events in the region, writing: "I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration's strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which [Egyptian President] Mubarak faced a popular revolt ... All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency."