An Evangelical for Obama: Foreign Policy

With Colin Powell’s endorsment of Obama hot off the press, it seems an appropriate time to examine the subject of foreign policy and what it means for this election.  It’s a topic which I have addressed before, as the foreign policy was one of the first things gained my support for Obama.  There are three particular areas which are worth addressing when examining Obama on foreign policy: the people around him, the diplomatic approach, and the world’s opinion.  I find this a better way to approach the topic than examining particular countries and conflicts, as the ideas expressed here will determine the approaches to those specific incidents.

Advisors and Supporters

One of the things that has impressed me the most about Obama is how he has consistently surrounded himself with people who are experts on their topics.  If I had to identify the specific point in time when I started leaning toward supporting Obama, it would be when Major-General Scott Gration visited one of my foreign policy classes last year.  Gration is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and an advisor to Obama on security and foreign policy.  His visit occurred not long after the infamous Pakistan comments were made by Obama, which I asked Maj Gen Gration about and received a well reasoned reply.  (The gist of it being that Obama never said to attack Pakistan, but that if we clearly knew where Osama bin Laden was, we should not hesitate to take him out.)

The reason the people behind Obama are important on this issue is because he does have, admittedly, less experience than Senator McCain does.  In addition to Maj Gen Gration, several other endorsements are indicative that Obama has the appropriate credentials in the foreign policy field:

• The support of Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State and an extremely well respected person in the foreign policy arena.
• The recent endorsement by Colin Powell, also an extremely well respected Secretary of State, but for a Republican president.
• His running mate, Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Diplomacy and National Security

The single most discussed issue about Obama’s foreign policy is, of course, his willingness to conduct diplomacy with foreign leaders.  That this has been such a big issue reflects what I find to be a disturbing trend within the American mindset.  The idea that we should only talk to people who are going to do what we want means that either we think the entire world should be like us or that we are better than the rest of the world.  Neither one is a particularly appealing option to me.

The fact is that most of the world is not like America, and much of it doesn’t like America.  When dealing with such countries and their leaders, there is an established approach.  It moves, roughly, from diplomacy through sanctions to military force.  (There are, obviously, many, many more tools that fall along that continuum, but I’ve condensed it for simplicity.)  If Obama believes that U.S. foreign policy during the Bush administration has failed (and I tend to agree with him), it’s unsurprising that he is willing to move back to the beginning of the continuum.  This doesn’t show naïvete, it shows someone who understands and appreciates foreign affairs.

It shows something else as well: a worldview that believes in talking with the Other and forging a consensus.  This doesn’t mean giving in to our enemies, but it does mean being willing to seek a peaceful solution before resorting to violence, whether economic or military.  As I said in my previous post:

What I find so persuasive about Obama’s foreign policy ideas is that he believes in talking to people. Much of our foreign policy of late seems to have been composed of demands and threats of force.

If we think that Obama engaging Iran in diplomacy means letting it have nuclear weapons, or speaking with Venezuela means ceding it control over Latin America, then our opinion on foreign policy is just as naïve as we think Obama’s is.  Diplomacy is at the core of the international system, and any president who is not willing to place it on the table is forgoing a powerful tool.

In the Eyes of the World

Just as persuasive to me as Obama’s diplomacy-focused foreign policy is the international support that he enjoys.  Nearly every country in the world would prefer an Obama presidency over the next four years.  In this BBC News survey, he enjoyed a margin of support of almost 4 to 1.  Note that this isn’t just one particular form of government, this is democracies, dictatorships, and everything in between, including both our allies and our enemies.  The rest of the world may not like America right now, but what this indicates is that it wants to like America and it thinks it can, under Obama.

Oddly, this strong international support for Obama seems to be a negative point for some Conservatives (though they tend to be especially dismayed by his backing in France).  This is another facet of the disturbing American mindset that I mentioned above.  If the international community’s support of Obama is a bad thing, that means there is either something wrong with the international community or something better about America.  Such a view fails to appreciate the diversity of the world and the positive aspects of cultures and governments around the globe.

• The support of the international community is, in the end, irrelevant.  Obama is an American politician and is beholden to the American people.  The choices he makes will reflect that allegiance and no other, especially if he wants to get (re-)elected.
• The best thing that could possibly happen for the United States right now is for our credibility with the rest of the world to increase.  This would help with trade, diplomacy, the war on terror, and numerous other foreign policy agenda items.  Obama’s popularity with the international community is a perfect chance to do exactly that.
• The support for Obama around the world, but especially in Europe, is only partially due to an appreciation of his policies.  To many people it also represents a further advancement in the American community, as an African American becomes president and helps diversify the appearance of the United States to the world.  Europe, especially, may not like America’s current policies, but it does believe in what America represents, and Obama’s candidacy is symbolic of that American dream.

As an Evangelical…

So why does this matter to me as an Evangelical?  The answer is tricky, since we should not equate this nation, and thus its foreign policy, with Christianity.  Still, I’ll hazard a few answers:

• Even if we do not equate America with Christianity, much of the rest of the world does.  A diplomatic, well reasoned, and more internationally inclusive foreign policy will raise America in the eyes of the world, and Christianity along with it.  That sounds self-serving, I suppose, but Christianity has, sadly, become aligned with the worst of American actions in many places.
• While the U.S. is not Christianity, that does not mean that Christian ideals shouldn’t influence our policy ideas.  As Christians we are called on to wage peace over war, life over death, and reconciliation over division.  This doesn’t mean there aren’t times when war is necessary, but it shouldn’t define our agenda.  I believe that Obama’s foreign policy promotes these Christian ideals in powerful ways.
• Because all humans are made in the image of God, our foreign policy must promote human rights, both at home and abroad.  Obama’s consistent opposition of our practices at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere is a strong statement for this Evangelical belief.  (I am glad that Senator McCain also strongly opposes the Bush administration’s flirtations with torture.)

Two Additional Notes

First, on terrorism and national security.  Many people seem to think that Obama will jeopardize the security of our nation and somehow allow terrorism to grow.  I believe, however, that the most effective thing we can do to decrease terrorism is to improve the world’s view of America.  Terrorism will, of course, continue to exist, and Obama has demonstrated a clear resolve to confront terrorists at home and abroad.

Second, on Senator McCain.  This is by no means a one-sided election on the foreign policy front.  Senator McCain has very strong foreign policy credentials and would undoubtedly promote U.S. interests extremely well.  I support Obama, however, because I believe hehas a far stronger approach for the long run.

Obama’s approach is better because of the combination of excellent advisers, the emphasis on diplomacy, and Obama’s ability to connect with the rest of the world.  Each of these things alone is good, but when combined, they position America to take a unique roll in foreign policy at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.