In the past few weeks, many have been asking themselves what America’s foreign policy is. More specifically, what in the world is the American Foreign Policy of the Obama Administration? It seems to me that it is not that hard to identify.
Mr. Obama and his liberal crew do not have an American Foreign Policy. Mr. Obama cannot lead in foreign policy matters: his ideology renders him impotent. It is important to realize that a fundamental underpinning of liberal polity is the necessity of global governance. Obama has alluded to this often enough in his speeches and comments that his allegiance to this principle ought to be clear. Take, for example, his July 2008 campaign speech on foreign policy given at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C., in which he said,

That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of the global good. And that will be my fifth goal – rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century….
For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners….

Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It’s time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It’s time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world’s largest democracy – India – to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It’s time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It’s time to strengthen Nato by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It’s time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. (emphasis added)

Or his April 2007 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs,

In the wake of the Second World War, it was America that largely built a system of international institutions that carried us through the Cold War. Leaders like Harry Truman and George Marshall knew that instead of constraining our power, these institutions magnified it.

Now, of course, those phrases might seem innocous enough. America entered into many alliances, particularly in the last century as it rose to superpower status and assumed the role of world policemen. Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Harry S. Truman have been at the helm when the formation of these international institutions- the League of Nations, the United Nations- promised new eras of world peace. Each of these institutions has in its turn presided over the bloodiest century humanity has ever known, as the rise of humanism and socialism has brought tens and perhaps hundreds of millions to their death.
Our President was, according to his book, mentored by a known communist agent as a child; his Kenyan family was a moving force in bringing communism to Kenya; he was himself an active part of ACORN as a ‘community organizer.’ ACORN, if you haven’t heard, as an organization had at least left-leaning sympathies. The advocates of socialism have always believed that it would sweep the world to create a new society. Likewise, the humanists, whose language and motivations are essentially the same. Here is a quote from the Humanist Manifesto I:

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

You see there a ‘free and universal society,’ and ‘a shared life in a shared world.’ This is where Obama grew up. This is where he lives; he is here to institute radical change in America’s institutions and create that shared world.
Viewed in that light his statements take on a clearer context. In regard to foreign policy, it is a shared world. The UN becomes that ‘more perfect forum’ in which to resolve conflicts. Obama does not make policy decisions on difficult foreign policy issues, nor will there be any acknowledgement of American sovereignty or consideration of American interests other than by lip service. It is for the UN to make policy. The situation in Libya is a case in point. Until the UN announced its decision and set a policy, Obama was dithering; after they announced it, he was decisive. And that is probably all that can be expected of “American Foreign Policy” under this leadership; passive non-responsiveness unless the UN calls for action, and a radical change to strengthen the UN at the expense of America.

D Polsley (c) 2011 The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author.