Civil unrest is in full bloom for some South American and Eastern European countries. Thousands of protesters in Ukraine and Venezuela — many of whom are college-aged students — took to the streets to protest their governments’ wrongdoings.
The Ukraine protesters saw a short-term victory in forcing President Viktor Yanukovych from office and into Russian refuge. The efforts in Venezuela have not been as successful. Images and videos circulating around the Internet show the military and police brutally beating and firing on the protesters.
Though these countries seem completely distant and their recent developments inconsequential to the average American, these situations do impact our country.
Think about it: Countries in the modern era are completely interwoven and heavily rely on each other. The actions in one country can have direct implications for the world economy. Consider all the countries that we import goods from and export goods to — and all the countries that do the same for them.
So it should be no surprise that nations would want to establish credible foreign policy initiatives, but this is a tall order for the U.S. administration. The confusing and at times feckless foreign policy put forth by the Obama White House harms the already tarnished view of our country abroad.
To be fair, the president has been successful in dealing with terrorists abroad. His drone policy has been quite effective in dealing with rogue militants who pose a threat to this country. The message is clear and simple: If you are associated with radical groups that want to harm America, the results will be swift and dealt with unilaterally.
But when the administration has to put forth a vision of American influence and policy to world leaders, the message is completely muddled.
Will American international interests be protected? Will the country back up all the threats and promises it makes?
Though the White House may be inclined to answer yes to all of these questions, reality says otherwise. Remember Obama’s redline in Syria and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reset button in Russia? Our rhetoric seems to say one thing while our actions — or inaction — contradict it.
As NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd put it, in the case of Obama’s handling of Russian President Vladimir Putin, “Putin acts, Obama warns; Putin acts, Obama warns.”
Obama draws a red line in Syria and does not back it up; he advocates for the lifting of sanctions on nuclear development in Iran during peace talks, which ironically allows the Iranian nuclear program to progress.
Despite that no one wants American soldiers in these dangerous places, that should not be an excuse for not backing up your tough talk. When you make a stand on the international stage, you should at least justify it. Bring up economic or political ramifications for starters.
All of the red lines, reset buttons and presidential lectures have not deterred anyone from our foreign foes. Backing down on our own threats undermines the U.S.
We live in uncertain times. Who would have thought that the leader of a European state could be ousted by his own people? Who could have imagined a Cold-War power invading another nation so easily and without repercussions?
America’s foreign policy only affects the future. China and Japan are butting heads in territorial disputes. North Korea is still under the thumb of a madman with nuclear weapons. Iran and other countries in the Middle East are still not friends of America.
If another act of international transgression occurs, what will be the response of the U.S.? And more importantly, will anyone take it seriously?
[Michael Beato is a UF economics sophomore. His columns appear on Wednesdays. A version of this column ran on page 7 on 3/12/2014 under the headline "Obama’s plan for Venezuela, Ukraine?"]
