The Epic Battle of the Doctrines

United States President Barack Obama made my day earlier this week, and not as a result of anything having to do with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a speech addressed to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, Obama announced the new official international development policy of the United States. Of course, this information was largely ignored by the mainstream media, as the diplomatic walk-out and discussion of the Middle East peace process dominated headlines. However, this agenda is a diamond in the rough for international development junkies, who for decades have supported long- term initiatives with an emphasis on sustainability, instead of get-rich-quick schemes for impoverished nations. If Obama is truly dedicated to this new doctrine, international development will be much more successful, not only making a good return on our investments abroad, but also improving international cooperation and trade.

The concept of an American foreign policy doctrine was born simultaneously with our Republic, but has emerged as a political necessity within the last 60 years. Since World War II, each administration has developed their own specific doctrine, which outlines their concerns and challenges, and proposes strategies to face them. These doctrines are also utilized to assess the effectiveness of American approaches to foreign policy. 

President James Monroe was an early pioneer in the tradition of outlining an official foreign policy in doctrine form. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine created the first official interventionist platform, stating that any effort by a European power to further colonize the Americas would be seen as an act of aggression, and would result in a quick response by the United States. Abroad, this announcement was mostly shrugged off, but it created a precedent for strong presidential foreign policy platforms. The Truman Doctrine, which provided support to Greece and Turkey to prevent communist interference in those nations, began the more recent tradition of labeling an administration's foreign policy tendencies as an overall doctrine. 

The Bush and Obama Doctrines correspond in that they both contain provisions for democracy promotion and conflict prevention, but that is where the similarities end. The realist Bush Doctrine emphasized preemptive strikes and knee-jerk military responses to international challenges while feeding a confused public nationalistic propaganda and advocating a "If you're not with us, you're against us" neo-McCarthy terrorist-by-association witch hunt. Under the Bush doctrine, development was conducted, but it was not prioritized. Although Obama has continued and extended Special Operations abroad, and approved a surge in troops which has earned him the criticism of friends and foes alike, he continues to promote diplomacy as a civilized way to confront disagreement in the global arena. In contrast with the Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is much more reliant on international cooperation and multilateralism than its exceptionalist predecessor. 

In the past, the Obama Doctrine was referred to in a derogatory sense by critics, as simply a synonym for diplomacy. However, with its emphasis on development instead of only relying solely on security and politics, and a newfound dedication to... wait, are you ready?... results instead of simply assessing inputs, we will be able to better measure the impact of our contributions to other nations. This deliberate change of policy will place quality above quantity and isolation above collaboration. Through programs to improve economic reform both home and abroad, Obama hopes to improve transparency, anti-corruption efforts, and technological innovation. This new means for measurement of success coupled with a multifaceted approach of diplomacy, investment, and trade will promote the longevity and effectiveness of international development.