Photo by BertPass

As you may have heard, Barack Obama is the first black president. And he’s the first president born in Hawaii. He’s also the first president with the middle name Hussein.

There’s one more first that’s just as significant. As Ruth E. Van Reken pointed out, he's also the first "modern" president to have spent some of his formative years outside the United States. (I’m guessing the word "modern" is used to disqualify John Quincy Adams, who spent time in France). Recent Obama appointees Valerie Jarrett, Tim Geithner, James Jones, and Bill Richardson also share this trait.

Van Reken argues that growing up in another country gives someone a diversity of thought that others tend to lack. But what about the more literal question of how one sees the world? It’s already been suggested that Obama’s blackness will cause the world to view us differently. And after the disaster that was the Bush administration, the bar has been set fairly low for our next president. But the question remains: how will the new administration see the world?

America has always had a bit of superiority complex. Whether it’s as a “city upon a hill,” a country with a “manifest destiny,” or as the world’s “Last Best Hope,” the United States has long thought of itself as better than other countries. Presidents have acted accordingly. Bush’s flouting of international law may have been extreme, but was it not an extension of how the U.S. has always acted?

The color of Obama’s skin -- not to mention his youth and charisma -- will certainly get most of the international community to give us a second chance. But their opinion of us won’t actually change unless we change our behavior.

One could certainly ask who cares what the world thinks of us at this point. Aren’t we just acting in our best interests, as other countries do? Why should we appease the world at all?

I believe we're at a point in time where we actually need the world as much as the world needs us -- possibly even more. Bush has gotten this country into quite the mess, and we need help.

Take Guantanamo Bay. If Obama delivers on his promise to close it, this would improve our image abroad. It’s something that has to be done sooner or later; we can’t hold people forever. One of the obstacles to closing Gitmo is the question of what to do with many of the prisoners. More than 100 Yemenis, for example, have been imprisoned there since 2002 -- dozens of which are stuck in “diplomatic limbo.” Releasing them will require some sort of deal with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Most of the problems of the world today require multi-lateral solutions. The G-20 is working on a solution to the global financial crisis. Combating global warming will take commitment from all industrialized countries and will require some sort of international agreement like the Kyoto Protocol. As the recent events in Mumbai show, terrorism is a global problem that afflicts not just the west, but the whole world.

These international problems are not some quirk of the current age but the logical destination of human and technological evolution. As Robert Wright argues in his book, <I>Nonzero</I>, the more technology advances, the more co-operation becomes mutually beneficial. For instance, the banning -- or at least limiting -- of nuclear weapons would be mutually beneficial to the whole world, since no one wants nuclear annihilation. And the only way to limit nuclear proliferation is by making international agreements.

There are a few things that President Obama can do unilaterally to improve our image. Banning torture, for example, and holding companies like Blackwater accountable. But most things will require diplomacy.

The U.S. needs a new doctrine, one that eschews American exceptionalism. This new doctrine should re-assert our respect for other nations' sovereignty. Obama should reject the right of the U.S., or any other country, to invade another “preemptively.” The doctrine should also recognize the importance of international bodies like the U.N., and international treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the Kyoto Protocols.

In some cases, this New Internationalism can provide political cover. Obama is likely to use a Status of Forces Agreement to set a timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. When the time comes, we could use the same strategy to withdraw from Afghanistan. The fight in Afghanistan will require cooperation from Pakistan, while the Iraq withdrawal will require cooperation from Iran. Not only would it be unpopular to go about things unilaterally, it would be virtually impossible.

So far, the Obama foreign policy looks like it will be pragmatic, which is appropriate given the multiple crises we face. But I’m hoping for an even bigger break from the past. I’m hoping for a government, humbled by the failures of the last eight years, that sees itself as a member of the global community -- and not its pre-ordained ruler.

--Hillel Aron