It is hard to dislike Barack Obama. He is the epitome of the modern man; relaxed, confident, articulate, affable and dignified. In times of crisis, his presence was reassuring; in tragedy, he had comforting words. He possesses an undeniable natural charisma which, coupled with captivating rhetoric, leaves his audience engrossed.
His personality was central to his electoral success and many had high expectations. Obama was the first African-American president in the history of the United States. He was meant to bring hope, change and a healing of divisions.
In the international arena, he had to bring to an end the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the beginning of his presidency, many hoped that he would herald a new age of international diplomacy. Based on his campaign rhetoric, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.
Alas, as Rudy Giuliani rightly pointed out in 2008, “change is not a destination” and “hope is not a strategy”. Charisma has elements which blind and mislead individuals. To make a reasoned assessment of the Obama presidency, one has to try and forget the personal likeability that propelled him to high office and engage with the messianic promise which surrounds his persona.
At the end of his presidency, hope and healing are conspicuous by their absence. The 2016 US presidential campaign was divisive and damaging. It exposed a political culture which is fractured and deeply divided by race, economic and social class. Trust in governing institutions is at an all-time low while the political establishment is recovering from a political earthquake which shook it to the core.
The progressive camp is fractured. Hillary Clinton’s failure to win the race to the White House came in the wake of a divisive primary where Bernie Sanders demonstrated an incredible appeal with the grassroots of the Democratic Party. The future and the direction of progressive politics in the US seem to be uncertain.
During most of his presidency, Obama faced a hostile Republican-dominated Congress. However, he seemed to make few attempts at reaching bipartisan agreement. Indeed, his attitude towards Congress often seemed dismissive.
President Obama leaves office with a lower unemployment rate. He can also boast of having averted a downturn rivalling that of the Great Depression, introducing controversial healthcare reforms and championing marriage equality.
However, economic inequalities grew. Obama’s efforts failed to address the sense of disenfranchisement among some marginalised segments of society. This served to fuel part of the anger which led to a Trump victory.
In foreign affairs, the US seems to have scaled back its international role. While this is often controversial and unpopular, the US remains the only democracy that is capable of taking a leadership position in important and defining conflicts. Its role is therefore vital.
The premature withdrawal from Iraq and the reduction of troops from Afghanistan left power vacuums which the post-liberation administrations could not fill. In Afghanistan, the Taliban forces now control more territory than they did at any time since 2001. In Iraq, the rise of ISIS shocked the world for its brutality and rapid expansion. The threat of terror still looms large over a fearful world.
In North Africa and the Middle East, the Obama administration failed miserably. The initial hopes that the 2011 uprisings heralded an “Arab Spring” were quickly dashed. The military still controls Egypt, Libya is a failed state, and Tunisia is attempting to hold together a fragile democracy despite the terror threats and a declining tourist industry.
Yemen is devastated by a civil war between the Saudi-backed President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi and the Houthi rebels backed by Iran. This conflict leaves over 80 per cent of the population in drastic need of aid.
A similar humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Syria. Initially, Obama said that “Assad must go”. As the crisis unfolded, it became harder to decipher the nature of the Syrian opposition to the regime. A section of the opposition forces was aligned to Al-Qaeda, while others were far too fragmented to be able to form a credible alternative to President Assad.
The rise of ISIS exacerbated matters further. When this group announced the establishment of Islamic State with its headquarters in the Syrian city of Raqqa, Assad successfully rebranded himself as the only guarantor against extremism. Few questioned the hidden unholy alliance between the Syrian regime and IS. Russia supposedly intervened to fight extremism and defend persecuted Christians. While doing so, it bolstered the Assad regime which continues in its flagrant violations of human rights.
Five years from the start of the conflict, the humanitarian situation in Syria is dire, and President Assad still controls key areas of the country. The situation in the region is worse than it was when Obama was inaugurated in 2009.
The muddled approach adopted by the US had the indirect consequence of strengthening leaders such as Vladimir Putin. The reaction to Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimea and its meddling in Eastern Ukraine was largely ineffective. Putin’s ascendancy on the global stage seems to be inevitable.
There have been some foreign policy successes. The US restored relations with Cuba and managed to negotiate a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change is also likely to have a positive impact. However, these achievements are based on very fragile foundations, and their long-term success is yet to be determined.
The killing of Osama bin Laden – another key moment of the Obama presidency – was overshadowed by the emergence of a terrorist organisation that is much more brutal.
Unlike President Bush, Obama leaves the White House as a popular figure. In contrast to President Clinton, his time at the Oval Office was not stained by any major scandal. His post-presidency is likely to be successful, active and effective.
However, Obama’s presidency will need to be judged on the criteria he set for himself. Hope and change were meaningless slogans which could not be translated into concrete policies. He began his presidency with high expectations.
At its conclusion, his reticence to act has found him wanting. In many respects, these shortcomings paved the way for a more insecure global scenario, profound political divisions and the rise of Donald Trump.
andre.deb@gmail.com
André DeBattista is an independent researcher in the field of politics and international relations.