Last week I took part in a debate at The Arts Club in London on the foreign policy of President Obama. I was joined by Toby Young opposing the motion proposed by former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the BBC’s Mark Mardell that Obama’s foreign policy has been a success. Julia Hartley-Brewer kept us (but not her own glass of water) under strict control.

Lively occasion, with a number of public speaking points of interest. Debating is a skill in itself. You have to work up a plan for advancing your strong points while more or less graciously acknowledging your opponents’ strong points, all the while trying to tune into the audience and adjusting accordingly. Above all, you have to speak with authority and be convincing. A fully prepared script drains spontaneity. Not easy.

Hence, question. What is a ‘successful’ foreign policy in general terms, and what might a successful American president’s foreign policy look like?

I made the case (maybe too didactically) that a successful foreign policy combines good principles/policies with good process to achieve positive and sustained outcomes that people see as such. My debate notes:

What = success in FP? Principles, Process and Outcomes + Perceptions

Principles –> Clarity, Consistency, Ambition

Process –> Practical Effectiveness, Firmness, Restraint

Outcomes –> Goals reached, views changed for better, good results sustained

Perceptions –> what you think and how people see it (Blair)

Success in many forms

doing better than before – putting things right

setting key goals and reaching them / missing them heroically

key principles/policies/philosophies/practices –> lasting positive results

long-term v short-term

What FP success means for US President specifically

Far more power

Far more opportunities to define/advance multiple agendas

Far more responsibility – far more dangerous if things go wrong

 What isn’t success: Mediocrity <– –> Failure

            Dithering

            Leaving things worse

            Incoherent Process –>  bad outcomes

            Short-term improvisation –> long-term disarray

    Shrugging shoulders and denying responsibility

I acknowledged the Iran Deal as a success insofar as FP successes are typically defined, noting Jack Straw’s own patient role in previous years pushing towards a negotiated outcome. Even this ‘success’ left one of world’s nastiest regimes with lots of new money to spread instability. But Syria, Ukraine, Egypt and many others were obvious failings, where the vacuous themes presented in Obama’s early speeches in Cairo and Moscow had led to detached dithering on a ruinous scale. Obama’s sense of ‘pulling back’ from overseas interventions was nothing new. As President Nixon had put it back in 1970:

The USA can no longer “conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions, and undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world”.

What was new was the limp Obama idea of ‘leading from behind’. See eg the Syria ‘red line’ debacle. Or the Obama move to open diplomatic relations with Cuba: why not use that good approach also to call for Cuba to move towards free and fair elections and put US weight behind democracy for Cubans? Obama’s ghastly performance when James Foley was butchered (returning to the golf-course after making his statement saying how awful it was) had exemplified his ‘detachment’ and was not merely a problem with ‘optics’.

The Straw/Mardell side of the debate focused heavily on the Iran deal, arguing (in my view rather contradictorily) that Iran had not been developing nuclear weapons but that the new Iran deal averted the real risk of a huge disaster through crass military intervention designed to stop them acquiring those nukes. More generally could Obama realistically have done more? Thanks to him the world was a safer place!

Anyway, to and fro largely along those lines. Toby Young signed off powerfully, arguing that for so many oppressed peoples round the world the ultra ‘detached’ Obama was just not ‘there’ on their side, even rhetorically. I concluded that Obama’s basic approach echoed the doomed appeal of the US President (Jack Nicholson) in Mars Attacks: “Why can’t we all just … get along?” As a member of the audience had wisely noted, if the USA and Obama appeared not to want to lead, other less savoury leaders were showing their zeal to fill the gap. Was the world really safer? Not so much…

* * * * *

Before the debate a poll of the audience showed a clear majority opposing the motion, ie seeing Obama’s FP as not a success.

After the various points made by us debaters and subsequent audience comments/questions, the motion fell but by a reduced majority, so our side won but the Straw/Mardell case swayed some waverers. A nice success for both sides.