A weak leader?

Who says Obama is a weak leader?

I WISH to restore some balance and objectivity to the evaluation of United States President Barack Obama's foreign policy. All too often today, the narrative is that he is a weak and ineffective leader.

In his column ("Bold move on US pivot promise"; May 3), Australian academic Hugh White mentioned

"Mr Obama's weak and muddled responses on Syria" and his "very cautious approach to the crisis in Ukraine", suggesting that the US President is "increasingly reluctant to meet the demands of global primacy".

Then, Europe correspondent Jonathan Eyal wrote that Mr Obama "is found wanting on both diplomacy and war" ("Obama's foreign policy failures"; May 5).

I applaud Mr Obama's prudent approach to the use of force. We should be thankful that he has not launched any unnecessary or unwinnable wars.

I don't think Osama bin Laden would call him a weak leader. I don't think those who have been killed by US drones would call him a weak leader. I don't think the Somali pirates who kidnapped Captain Richard Phillips would call him a weak leader.

In the case of Libya, the United Nations Security Council had adopted a resolution creating a no-fly zone. It was not a resolution authorising armed intervention. The US played an instrumental role in preventing Muammar Gaddafi's forces from capturing the rebel-held city of Benghazi. But the UN mandate in Libya did not include intervention in the civil war.

Mr Obama has been condemned for his failure to carry out his threat to attack Syria when President Bashar al-Assad crossed the so-called red line by using chemical weapons against his own people. The bottom line is that the chemical weapons have been removed from Syria. Does it matter whether this was accomplished by an armed attack or by diplomacy?

I guess neither Professor White nor Mr Eyal is familiar with Chinese strategist and statesman Zhuge Liang, who lived during the late Han and Three Kingdoms period (181-234). In one of his famous battles, his victory was won by deception and without shedding blood. Asians admire him. Perhaps Mr Obama's critics in the West have a different worldview.

Given the fact that Ukraine is divided into two halves, with the eastern half favouring closer relations with Russia, and the western half favouring closer ties with the European Union, the only sensible solution was to remain neutral.

Former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich was unwise in seeking to bring Ukraine into the Russian orbit. He was, however, a democratically elected leader. The EU and the US were wrong to instigate his overthrow by unconstitutional means. Russia is wrong to have annexed Crimea.

The truth is that everyone - the Ukrainians, the Russians, the Europeans and the Americans - messed up.

Tommy Koh (Professor)

Forum note: The writer served as Singapore's Ambassador to the United States from 1984 to 1990.

With thanks to Straits Times www.straitstimes.com  17 May 2014