U.S. President Barack Obama: "What is on the score card one year later ?"

On January 20 2009, the inauguration of the new President was an emotional celebration. Hundreds of thousands attended on the streets of Washington D.C. and billions of TV viewers around the globe watched euphorically, optimistically joining the feeling that a new era had begun. Hope, optimism and high expectations of a safer and better world were concentrated on one man and his family.

So what is on the score card one year later? One impact is certain: the election of the first African-American President has already changed the image of the United States drastically. This effect has been generated by the President's public appearances in so-called "Town Hall Meetings" and by speeches carefully tuned to various audiences, like his speech on television addressing the people of Iran and his Cairo speech addressing the Muslim world.

His Nobel Peace Prize was a result of his reach-out politics. On the other hand, there are critics who ask whether or not Obama relies too much 'soft' power. However, they miss the balance with 'hard' power - the second pillar of smart politics. Obama's critics are wrong to blame him for addressing all important domestic and foreign issues at once. In a globalized and interwoven world there is an urgent need for simultaneous political efforts. There is no way to isolate one issue and take time out for the rest.

A balanced evaluation requires answers to several questions:

What are the interim results after one year?
What are his greatest achievements?
What are his most serious failures?
What should we expect for the near future? - here keeping in mind that in one year's time there will be mid-term elections, by tradition a litmus test for the government

BrigGen (ret) Dieter Farwick, WSN Global Editor, took the opportunity to direct these questions at some political experts from both sides of the Atlantic as well as from India and Israel.

Bob Hunter, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO (USA), Jackson Janes, Director AICGS (USA), Judith Klinghoffer, Journalist (USA), Walter Laqueur, Historian (USA), Mike Munson, Former Deputy Director DIA (USA), Gen(ret) Klaus Naumann, Former Chairman NATO Military Committee (Germany), Division Commander(ret) Peter Regli, Former Major General (Switzerland), Hon. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Andrea Riemer, Ph.D. (Austria), Prof. Barry Rubin, Director GLORIA Center (Israel), Siddharth Srivastava, WSN Editor India (India) and BrigGen(ret) Heinz Vetschera, Political Consultant (Austria).

Dieter Farwick: What are the interim results after one year?

Bob Hunter, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: "The mid-terms are classically a referendum on domestic policy."

Bob Hunter: President Obama has been putting US foreign policy back "on track" in terms of grounding it in US interests, properly understood, and its lasting values. Much of what he has begun will take time to reach fruition, but the journey has clearly started.

Jackson Janes: Given what he had to cope with when he entered office, last January, I think the interim results are essentially - interim. He began to reposition the US in a number of contexts with his multiple visits to Europe, his speech in Cairo, his outreach to Asia and numerous other trips abroad. In general I would say he has set engagements in motion where he can. Giventhe economic turmoil at home, and the domestic battles over health care reform, I think he has reset the domestic and foreign policy agenda in a very short time.

Judith Klinghoffer: Candidate Barack Obama challenged Americans to be audacious enough to hope that being perceived as racist bullies was at the root of all their security and economic woes, therefore, the best way forward was to elect as president a first term multiracial senator who would change the "unfair" free enterprise system. To worldwide cheers, the majority of American voters not only accepted the challenge but provided the new president with a large Congressional majority eager to do his bidding. Together they used the economic downturn to increase significantly the government's control of major sectors of the economy from banking to insurance to mortgage lending and to car manufacturing. If everything goes as expected Congress is about to pass health care reform, the top Obama domestic agenda. President Clinton said that the era of big government is over. Obama has proven him wrong and he is not done yet.

Walter Laqueur: I feel a little uneasy if American domestic and foreign policy is discussed wholly in terms of the President, his achievements and failures. The President is powerful but not everything is decided by him and anyway, the decisions are greatly influenced by Congress, public opinion, the media etc. Sometimes they are greatly influenced by his advisers. As for Obama, I am not sure how important his advisers are..

Mike Munson: Interim results are mixed. his handling of the health care issue and the incarcerated in Guantanamo are poor as is the allowance of the Attorney General Holder to run free.

Klaus Naumann: It cannot be a foreigner's task to evaluate the President's achievements. I therefore leave entirely aside his domestic performance which will determine more than anything else the outcome of the midterm elections.

Peter Regli: As an interested, neutral observer in Europe, one has to look very carefully to find indications that Obama's repeatedly and heavily used slogan "Yes we can" - used all along the election campaign trail - has produced concrete results. President Obama is a great communicator, perhaps one of the best, and uses his Teleprompters almost perfectly. Twelve months of his presidency have passed. Nevertheless, great results cannot unfortunately be identified. A concrete strategy in his foreign policy, which would also be of vital importance for our European continent, is still lacking. His popularity and credibility, very high all over the world at the beginning of this year, seem to be melting away.

Andrea Riemer: A more or less comprehensive health reform under extreme economic constraints; a more positive and growing-together US-society (Obama is a bridger and not a divider).

Barry Rubin: The popularity of Obama is relatively high in the world but it has often not had an effect on the popularity of the United States. At any rate, popularity doesn't translate into influence, progress on issues, or the protection of U.S. interests. Moderates in Latin America, the Middle East, and other areas are discouraged believing they cannot depend on U.S. support. I would say the United States is either in the same situation or worse off now than it was two years ago.

Jackson Janes, Director AICGS: "One thing that is important is his outreach to India."

Siddharth Srivastava: It may be a bit too early to judge. From the point of Indo-U.S. relations, Obama has not tried to reverse the momentum built up by his predecessor George W. Bush.

Thus defence relations between the two countries continue to progress, with two of the biggest deals in the two nations' history going through under Obama. U.S. firms are now negotiating nuclear energy contracts with India too.

However, these aspects benefit U.S. business interests as well.

It remains to be seen how Obama handles the tricky issue of outsourcing once the U.S. economy picks up. He speaks of the need to stop U.S. jobs going to Bangalore, even during his election campaign. However, how all of this talk impacts policy once the going gets good, when jobs are again available and competition turns stiff, will need to be assessed. There will be pressure on Obama from American companies such as Microsoft to dilute his anti-outsourcing position.

Heinz Vetschera: Major challenges are:

On the domestic level:

• An economic policy to combat the economic crisis/recession, strengthen the dollar and reduce unemployment;
• Health care;
• Educational system:
• Popular support for foreign policy (in particular Afghanistan).

On the international level:

• Strengthening the role of the US in the world;
• Stability in Afghanistan and in Pakistan;
• Stabilization of Iraq up to US withdrawal;
• The Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
• The nuclear challenge of North Korea and Iran;
• Nuclear arms control, in particular with Russia (START) but also in reviving the NPT;
• A renewed interest in stabilizing the Balkans.

While the late Bush years had been characterized by a perceived decline in the role of the US, in particular due to its unilateralism, the Obama administration has reversed this perception. It has opted for a strategy of "leadership in partnership" in a multilateral approach. This can be seen both in dealing with e.g. the economic crisis, but also with respect to mending the gaps with Europe, more openness to the Muslim world¹, the renewed initiative in nuclear arms control, and a forthcoming attitude in ecological issues (global warming). The US does no longer project the image of the "lonesome rider" but of a team player, even when the substance of policy may have less changed than perceived.

Judith Apter Klinghoffer, Journalist: "The country is seething with a degree of anger not seen since the late Sixties."

There has been a widely shared assessment (not at least under the impression that the Nobel Prize award would have been premature, based on expectations rather than achievement) that the administration had a low record in substance (as a comment in Newsweek put it: ""Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn't Yet)."

Despite these comments, we can already see some concrete results in some fields, as for example:

• On the domestic level the adoption of the health care legislation;
• The averting of worse consequences of the economic crisis, with some chances of recovery;
• Concrete steps in nuclear arms control in relation to Russia.

In other fields we can see promising changes in relation to the policies of the previous administration, but not yet concrete results, as for example

• Organized withdrawal from Iraq with a set deadline;
• A wider approach to combat insurgencies in Afghanistan and the increased engagement in Pakistan to avert a melt down;
• A less biased position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular with a critical attitude towards further Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory;
• An explicitly changed attitude towards the Muslim world.

Finally, there are areas where the policies do not differ too much in substance from the previous administration, as for example

• The nuclear issues with North Korea and Iran;
• Attitudes towards the regime in Iran (in particular in view of the rising opposition).

1 The term "Muslim world" should not be misunderstood as - in reality - it does not exist in this coherent entirety. It is a simplification used both by politicized (and politicizing) Muslims and their simplistic counterparts in the West. However, this simplistic and generalizing attitude in particular by the Bush administration than required a similarly generalizing approach to revert the trend ...more