When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
eyes on the U.S.

A French Take On The “Obama Doctrine”

Barack Obama's discourse on military intervention in Libya has been seen as a blueprint for his new approach to U.S. decisions on war and peace. Le Figaro dissects the so-called “Obama doctrine,” and what it means for United States -- and the res

A French Take On The “Obama Doctrine”
Pierre Rousselin

Is there really an "Obama doctrine"? Every time the United States goes to war, its president addresses the nation to explain the reasons behind the military intervention, its goals, and its limits... and of course drum-up popular support for the war. In the case of Libya, the first act of foreign intervention initiated by the president, Barack Obama waited for ten days before subjecting himself to this ritual duty. In the meantime, he went off to the other end of the world, to Brazil, as if to show his detachment from the situation.

On Monday evening, the American president made a speech that was immediately hailed as an outline of an "Obama doctrine". This is a rather ambitious description for an address that was only trying to justify American military engagement in a country where the U.S. national interests are not really at stake.

In his speech, Barack Obama argued that the United States had a moral obligation to rescue the civil population threatened by Colonel Gaddafi. Does this mean that the United States will react in the same way in similar circumstances? The answer is no, so there is no "Obama doctrine" on this point. Since the uprising started in Libya, the White House has been asking Gaddafi "to go". But it took it a long time to rally behind the French-led movement in favor of military intervention.

So is Barack Obama for or against a regime change? In the president's words, "There is no question that Libya, and the world, would be better off with Gaddafi out of power. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." Translation: "Yes we need a regime change but I am not prepared to take on the responsibility." Does the fact that Obama is willing to go against the Pentagon to initiate a third round of military intervention in a Muslim country, when America elected him to put an end to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, make him an interventionist? His response: "We should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America's alone."

So the "Obama doctrine" may be expressed as follows: the leadership of an economically and diplomatically weakened America no longer consists of the taking the lead on military intervention around the world; but rather in ensuring that other countries carry the burden of multilateral actions supported by the United States.

This part of the "Obama doctrine" marks an important break from the American strategy since the Second World War. It opens the door to a growing role on the part of middle-powers such as France and Great Britain in circumstances where their interests are at stake. This does not mean that the United States will stop trying to control these interventions, especially through international organizations such as NATO.

Read the original article in French.


You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

After Abbas: Here Are The Three Frontrunners To Be The Next Palestinian Leader

Israel and the West have often asked: Where is the Palestinian Mandela? The divided regimes between Gaza and the West Bank continues to make it difficult to imagine the future Palestinian leader. Still, these three names are worth considering.

Photo of Mahmoud Abbas speaking into microphone

Abbas is 88, and has been the leading Palestinian political figure since 2005

Thaer Ganaim/APA Images via ZUMA
Elias Kassem

Updated Dec. 5, 2023 at 12:05 a.m.

Israel has set two goals for its Gaza war: destroying Hamas and releasing hostages.

But it has no answer to, nor is even asking the question: What comes next?

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the return of the current Palestinian Authority to govern post-war Gaza. That stance seems opposed to the U.S. Administration’s call to revitalize the Palestinian Authority (PA) to assume power in the coastal enclave.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

But neither Israel nor the U.S. put a detailed plan for a governing body in post-war Gaza, let alone offering a vision for a bonafide Palestinian state that would also encompass the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority, which administers much of the occupied West Bank, was created in1994 as part of the Oslo Accords peace agreement. It’s now led by President Mahmoud Abbas, who succeeded Yasser Arafat in 2005. Over the past few years, the question of who would succeed Abbas, now 88 years old, has largely dominated internal Palestinian politics.

But that question has gained new urgency — and was fundamentally altered — with the war in Gaza.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest