Cultural diplomacy & humanisation in American foreign policy*
PLEASE allow me to revisit several pieces I wrote on a paradigm shift in American foreign policy, from one of imperial conquest to one of humanisation, thanks to President Barack Obama. Imperialist arrogance from the United States and those with similar profiles, historically, by definition, interfered with poor nations to push them into greater poverty. History sustains the view that poverty stimulates and attracts arrogant external dominance; and this was a calculated act by the self-styled, upright rich nations, particularly of the West.

The United States has a persisting track record of external aggression, some covert, some overt, the purpose of which is to dominate other countries’ resources to advance its own national security interests; there are others equally guilty of such behaviours, but the scale of American external dominance has been overwhelming.
Most American Presidents, in their quest to sustain this unique American imperialism complied with the Senator Beveridge Posture, Truman Doctrine, and Eisenhower Doctrine. But, today, we are beginning to see the emergence of the Obama doctrine: A humanising approach characterised by an increased weighting towards cultural diplomacy in international relations.
The U.K. newspaper, the Guardian of February 11, 2011, alluded to a shift in Obama’s foreign policy, thus: “In sharply criticising the Cairo government’s prevarications, demanding it respect universal values, and stressing that his administration stands shoulder to shoulder with the demonstrators in Tahrir Square, the U.S. president dramatically changed the way his country does business in the region. This was, to all intents and purposes, the proclamation of an Obama doctrine.”

Last Monday evening, President Obama gave his first speech to the American nation to provide an update for U.S. intervention in Libya. He explained that the U.S. intervention has international legitimacy, broad multilateralism among allies, support from the Libyan opposition and the Libyan people, and the backing of the Arab League.
Obama’s approach to the Libyan intervention is distinct from the traditional American unilateralism, where imperial conquests were a characteristic feature of its external aggression. After Obama’s speech, Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, among others, in the true spirit of securing and advancing imperial conquests, showed resonance with traditional American unilateralism, vis-à-vis calling for ‘regime change’ in Libya vis-à-vis military action.
Obama opposes this line. Let us now examine some of Obama’s earlier efforts toward creating humanisation and cultural diplomacy in U.S. international relations.
Then President-Elect Obama, in a Zakaria interview, advanced the notion that world issues and American issues are progressively becoming more interrelated; and it is difficult to delineate a distinction between U.S. domestic policy and U.S. foreign policy; a situation that may require cultural diplomacy and humanisation.
Clearly, Obama, unlike his predecessor, sees a linked world, and, indeed, unlike Bush, does not divide the world into an axis of evil and an axis of good. Obama takes the view that America should gain knowledge about other countries, because they are not monoliths; these countries contain massive diversity and problems.
For these reasons, Obama’s foreign policy hub may show bias towards people’s economic circumstances, civil society, and people’s dignity. And he tosses out Bush’s foreign policy apprehensions with elections and the freedom march in foreign lands, because Obama acknowledges that people’s needs — food, shelter, and jobs — should carry greater weighting.
And not long after his inauguration, President Obama, in his Weekly Address, proposed a paradigm shift in American foreign policy, where he noted:
“…The proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons, the persistence of deadly disease, and the recurrence of age-old conflicts. These are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone.
“The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations…With all that is at stake today, we cannot afford to talk past one another. We can’t afford to allow old differences to prevent us from making progress in areas of common concern. We can’t afford to let walls of mistrust stand. Instead, we have to find – and build on – our mutual interests. For it is only when people come together, and seek common ground, that some of that mistrust can begin to fade. And that is where progress begins…”
This Weekly Address defines Obama’s foreign policy approach, and imposes a huge weighting to cultural diplomacy and humanisation in international relations.
Obama’s paper, “Renewing American Leadership” (Foreign Affairs), noted: “…The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity…The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office…”
Clearly, Obama’s philosophy of U.S. foreign policy is in complete non-alignment with imperial conquest, differing significantly from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld drumming that followed the same line of Senator Albert Beveridge’s position in 1898; President Woodrow Wilson’s advocacy for imperialism; the Truman Doctrine in 1947; and the Eisenhower Doctrine in 1957.
Obama does not support the arrogance and ethnocentrism of unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy and U.S, imperial conquests. Obama’s advocacy for refurbishing America’s promise, where the people of the world share a common understanding and a common security, will present to us the defining moments of his foreign policy agenda. (*Previously published, but slightly revised)