Score Card of Obama's First Hundred Days

Last November, immediately following the US elections, the Salzburg Global Seminar held Session 458, “The US and the World: New Strategies of Engagement.”

The session was held in partnership with the Financial Times, and included a wide variety of experts and specialists from the US, Europe, East and South Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

At its conclusion we produced a “Roadmap for Re-engagement: The World’s Advice to the New Administration.” One of the main components of this Roadmap was an “8 Point Plan for the First 100 Days”, which has proved remarkably accurate. (The Roadmap can be accessed here)

April 29, 2009 will mark the 100th day of Barack Obama’s Presidency. How has the Obama administration done against those goals? What has succeeded? What has failed?

We asked eight international experts to address these questions, and to offer their grades of Obama's performance.

A summary of the findings is also available on the Financial Times website.

What do you think?

The 8 Point Plan:

1. “Go Big” in the Inaugural Address

Theodore C. Sorensen, author of Counselor, A Life At the Edge of History; former special counsel and speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy

Grade: A

An Inaugural Address, unlike a Party Platform or a State of the Union Address to Congress, should not be judged on the basis of specific concrete pledges that necessarily await the assembling of the new President’s complete team and detailed studies, but instead on the basis of his clear communication of his principal priorities. On this basis, Barack Obama’s powerfully plainspoken address of January 20, 2009 deserves an “A,” even when measured against the specific high hopes of last November’s Salzburg Global Seminar’s “Roadmap for Global Re-engagement.” Obama’s “global view,” as conveyed in that address, “went big” on all three objectives singled out by the Seminar, without unrealistically promising that any of them would be accomplished in his first 100 days:

Meet the global financial crisis multilaterally:
“The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift…what is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our Nation and the world… [T]o the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you… [T]o those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders.”

Work for global nuclear disarmament, with renewed American leadership for peace:
“To all the other peoples and governments who are watching today…know that America is a friend of each nation…who seeks the future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more…not just with missiles and tanks but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions…our power alone cannot protect… [O]ur security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint… [N]ew threats…demand even greater cooperation and understanding between nations…with old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat…America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace…”

Stop catastrophic climate change:
“We cannot consume the world’s resources without regard to effect…the ways we use energy threaten our planet…we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”

2. Fight terrorism under the Rule of Law

Mark S. Ellis, Executive Director, International Bar Association, London

Grade: B

On January 22, 2009, two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued a series of executive orders that inter alia set in motion the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, the suspension of all trials at Guantanamo for 120 days pending a review of the military tribunals, the decommission of secret CIA detention centres in foreign territories and the prohibition against such centres in the future, a formal injunction against “enhanced interrogation techniques” inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual on intelligence collection, and a reversal of the Bush administration policy of refusing to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act if they related to the interrogation and treatment of detainees.

With these and other acts, President Obama’s first one hundred days have been a welcome antidote to a deeply troubled period in American history marked by international strife and the degeneration of international legal norms. Obama’s first directives were intended to demonstrate a recommitment by the United States to international humanitarian and human rights law, and to reassure the world that his administration would embark on a new path premised on the rule of law. In many ways, he has succeeded.

However, without minimizing the importance of President Obama’s actions, they were nonetheless the least controversial in the eyes of the international community and the constituency that elected him to office. In the face of more nuanced and politically controversial issues, the Obama administration shows signs of uncertainty. Continued wavering or failure to act decisively on several difficult fronts may weaken the President’s political capital and contradict his pledge to fight terrorism “in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

For example, the government has been sluggish in conducting habeas corpus hearings for Guantanamo Bay detainees. The administration also plans to appeal a recent Federal Court ruling that allows foreign-born detainees held by U.S. forces in Afghanistan to pursue habeas corpus proceedings.

Furthermore, the Obama administration has yet to voice strong commitment to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The continued absence of the United States as a State-Party to the Rome Statute is a stark reminder that the U.S. remains outside the key international framework constructed to ensure that those who commit the most egregious violations of international criminal law are brought to justice.

Most worrisome in the first hundred days, and a key test in the coming months, is President Obama’s equivocation regarding the possible prosecution of individuals involved in torturing detainees under U.S. control. President Obama has stated that “we have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But… nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying the blame for the past.” More recently he suggested that those who laid the groundwork for torture might after all face prosecution.

Obama’s early statements dismissed the need for accountability - one of the most fundamental principles of customary international law. Continuing on this course would be an embrace of impunity and legally indefensible. As a signatory to both the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the United States is obligated to prosecute those who have committed crimes of torture and other inhumane acts. It would be misguided and paradoxical if this administration were to ignore past human rights violations while espousing the virtues of the rule of law.


3. Review the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan
Francois Heisbourg, Special Advisor, Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique, Paris; former Senior Vice President Strategic Development at MATRA-Defense-Espace, Paris

Grade: B+ (with an A for effort)

President Obama is following through on his campaign commitments regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. Concerning Iraq, the plan is to withdraw combat forces by the second half of 2010, a timetable roughly in line with the 16 month post-inaugural calendar asserted during the campaign. In parallel, and in keeping with campaign promises, the president is vigorously pursuing efforts to open a broad-spectrum dialogue with Iran, the regional power which exercises the greatest political influence in Iraq.

It remains to be seen whether overtures towards Iran will be crowned with success, and, if so, whether they will lead to long-term stability in Iraq.

President Obama has presented a new road-map for Afghanistan, which has been discussed at head of state level with America's European partners at NATO's jubilee summit in April. The new road-map assumes a much greater political role for Afghanistan's regional neighbors, while increasing the number of US troops: therefore, the new plan is unlikely to lead to a greater sense of ownership by the Europeans, whose role is, iin practice, being de-emphasized. Rather than a collectively developed strategy, the road-map was made in Washington: its success or its failure will be laid at Obama's doorstep. By the same token, this has not led to a transatlantic row, as little is being asked of the Europeans in terms of additional military forces.

After having been NATO-centered since 2004, the western commitment in Afghanistan is shifting back towards a coalition-based approach, as in 2001/2 albeit this time with a deliberate and welcome attempt to integrate the political, economic, diplomatic and military dimensions of the conflict. It remains to be seen whether the new American strategy will work; what we do know is that the NATO-centered effort is failing.

As in the case of Iraq, Obama has improved his chances of success in Aghanistan by scaling down the ambition of America's war aims. Building democracy is no longer a war aim.

4. Strengthen the Transatlantic Partnership
Constanze Stelzenmüller, director of the Berlin office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States; the views expressed here are her own.

Grade: A-

President Obama has made remarkable progress in reinvigorating transatlantic relations, in style as much as in content. “If you’re not with me, you’re against me”: the divisive style of Obama’s predecessor George Bush had made it easy for Europeans to say “no”, or “maybe”, and sit back comfortably to watch American policies fail in action. (The case of Georgia comes to mind most readily, but there are many others.) Obama, in contrast, manages to wrong foot his European colleagues with the slightest of gestures. Take the bobby in front of No. 10 Downing Street who, startled and delighted by a casual handshake from the American visitor, stretched out his hand to his Prime Minister – only to be sternly ignored. So much for “Cool Britannia”. Or the moment during Obama’s London press conference, where he called on the “foreign press”, caught himself, and said “wait, I’m the foreigner here”. Hard to imagine a more casually elegant – and lethal – critique of past American hubris. And equally hard to imagine a European leader being similarly self-deprecating about the flaws of European foreign policy.

Not that there has been a shortage of new content. Iraq, torture, CIA prisons, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, arms control, NATO and the UN Human Rights Council, climate policy: the “reset button” is being activated across the spectrum of foreign policy issues. Nothing like it has been seen in Europe for a long time; it is making Europeans take a hard look at their own politicians. Conservative U.S. critics have been accusing Obama of making too many concessions to his allies – not true. The President compromised gracefully where it was clear his allies had no political capital to spend (e.g. on stimulus packages and troops for Afghanistan). But when Turkey blocked Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s candidature for Secretary General of NATO, it was the visitor from Washington who resolved the impasse. It only made the lack of new ideas and initiatives on the European side all the more apparent.

But the absurdly intrusive U.S. vetting process for political nominees is deterring some of the best candidates, and blocking the formulation and implementation of policy. It’s a weakness America can ill afford in times of crisis.

This President, as an idealist, is clearly willing to work with his European allies, recognizing that even America needs help in tackling global challenges. But they may not realize that if they do not respond in kind, he will continue as a realist – alone.


5. Recommit the US to the United Nations System
Stephen Stedman, Professor of Political Science and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Palo Alto; Author of A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

Grade: A-

President Obama’s remarks, tone, and appointments to Turtle Bay in his first 100 days suggest that he wants to work with and through the United Nations to tackle transnational threats. He has thrown America’s hat in the ring for a seat on the Human Rights Council, signaling his desire to make the institution more effective. His Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, has won high marks for shepherding the Security Council to a presidential statement condemning North Korea’s missile launch. Her office has garnered respect for its understanding of how the UN operates and how it can be made more effective. Throughout the administration one finds an open door for discussions on strengthening UN peacekeeping, and many options long off the table, such as supplying lift capacity, bolstering over the horizon response forces, and strengthening civilian security capability are in play.

Unlike some issues, however, that can be gauged in the first 100 days, recommitting the United States to the UN is a long term project, more akin to working towards a graduate degree rather than a one issue short course. It has been decades since the UN has been more than a box to check when the US seeks to act internationally. Old habits die hard. The best test of recommitment will come during crises, when we see whether the UN is central stage or just a bit player.

President Obama understands this. In his meeting with Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon at the White House in March, he stated that one of his primary goals is that by the time he leaves the presidency, the American public will understand how important the United Nations is to American security. The success of this endeavor will depend on whether the UN will be able to live up to what the new President asks of it. Here the signs do not look good as the most UN friendly American president in decade must deal with one of the most unimpressive Secretaries General in memory. For some this is a tragedy, but for others a farce.


6. Engage in Global Public Diplomacy through carefully staged events
Mark Malloch Brown, Minister of State for Africa, Asia, and the UN, British Foreign and Commonwealth Office; former Deputy Secretary General, United Nations

Grade: A

The sixth point in the Salzburg Seminar’s 8-Point Plan of last year was to “Engage in Public Diplomacy Through Carefully Staged Events”.

After the mixed reactions at home to his speech at the Brandenberg Gate during the campaign last summer, it was not risk-free to embark on such a high profile trip to Europe. Although perhaps for this President in these circumstances there could be no ‘low’ profile travel.

But if President Obama was afraid of scepticism at home about any distraction from the domestic economic crisis or facing the pitfalls of international diplomacy, he exhibited no signs of it. It was a confident performance at every turn that followed the Seminar’s script to a tee. He attended three summits, visited five countries, plus a stop-over in Iraq, gave two town halls, spent two days in a Muslim country, Turkey, and in the trip’s opening, the G20 London Summit, he spoke eloquently to the wider agenda of poverty and economic and environmental sustainability – rather than the rescue of bankers.

Having seen him up close on that first leg of the trip, I can attest this was impressive public diplomacy. There was not one message or style for the private meetings and another for public consumption. The strategy flowed straight from Obama; it was no add-on by aides. In his ability during the Summit to arbitrate spats between other conference participants, he showed a sure touch which instantly set him apart as a senior statesman rather than the rookie.

In public, his references in Turkey to his upbringing in a Muslim country and having Muslims in his own family broke no new biographical ground, but it demonstrated the power of empathy to overcome the hostility aroused by the US in recent years. It was his core messaging and his personal capacity to reach out to America’s foes and critics, in ways that were neither condescending nor craven, that made it a remarkable international debut.

If there is a cautionary note to this glowing review it is that public diplomacy can lead reality – but over time reality must begin to catch up with perception. Obama showed his power to re-engage Europe on the basis of trusted partnership. But the implication of that was that Europe and the rest of the international community would rise to the occasion and respond to the problems that America considers itself to have carried too large a share of for too long. That reality remains to be proven.

For the President, the polling back home shows that the trip helped consolidate his standing among independents and moderate Republicans. This cross-party Reagan-like dimension of Obama’s appeal shone bright on this trip. An A for public diplomacy.


7. Pursue a Bi-Partisan Legislative Agenda
Jim Kolbe, Former Member of the US House of Representatives, Arizona’s 8th District; Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund

Grade: C-

It is probably foolhardy to believe that one can gauge the performance of any President after only 100 days in office. After all, 150 years after the Lincoln presidency scholars are still assessing his performance. Still, the public at large wants instant results and immediate evaluations, so—foolhardy or not—here would be my own report card on the Salzburg Global Seminar’s eight-point plan for the first 100 days of the Obama administration.

Of the 8-Point Plan, I think the least robust grade would have to given to this one—“Pursuing a Bi-Partisan Legislative Agenda”. If measured solely on the basis of counting votes by political party on the key legislative items submitted by the President, bi-partisanship has failed dismally. This is not to assign blame, but simply states a fact. The President’s two major legislative issues—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus package) and the 2010 budget resolutions in the House and Senate—received not a single Republican vote in the House and only three for the stimulus package in the Senate. Never in recent memory has a President with so much popularity and with such national economic anxiety run into such a headwind of partisan political opposition at the outset of his administration.

The underlying mistake was that the President “outsourced” the writing of the stimulus package to Congress. Democrat leaders immediately seized it as an opportunity to address eight years of pent up demands and rejected any cooperation with a minority which was just beginning to find its own “fiscally responsible” legs after eight years of fiscal confusion under President Bush. By the time President Obama was President and invited Republican leaders to the White House for discussion, the lines were drawn and hardened. This only made it easier to say “no” to the next significant economic legislative item—the budget resolution for 2010.

Meanwhile, on cap and trade, the President has floated some tentative proposals, only to see them swatted down by Members of his own party. It is clear that this issue will divide not along partisan lines, but geographic and economic lines, but that will not make the President’s task any easier. Offers to negotiate a new limitation on nuclear weapons have been put on the table with Russia, but Congress has remained silent on the topic. And on new presidential trade negotiating authority, the President is still boxed in by his own campaign rhetoric which was harshly anti-trade. Although this language has been significantly softened since he assumed office, the anti-trade crowd is still dominant in Congress. It is very hard to imagine that the President will want to confront his liberal congressional allies on this issue when he needs their support on the rest of his economic, regulatory and health care agenda.

Generously, I think the President gets a “C-“ on the congressional bi-partisanship front. But then, there is still plenty of time in the remaining 1300 days to raise that grade!


8. Be a Leader who Listens
Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS, has just published The New Asian Hemisphere: the Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East.

Grade: B

Obama’s election significantly changed the chemistry of America’s relations with the world. Anti – Americanism diminished globally. However, the great expectations of him have been tempered by the realization that his capacity for change – the slogan he campaigned on – is limited. To make matters worse, Obama has assumed the Presidency at one of the worst economic times. His options are limited.

So far, Obama has made the right noises. The disenchanted 1.2 billion Muslims have welcomed Obama’s assurance that “America is not at war with Islam”. It was brave of Obama to mention Muslim members in his own family. Yet many Muslims are acutely aware that Obama’s hands are tied on the Israel – Palestine issue. His incapacity to even attend the UN Racism Conference confirmed this. Until Obama delivers peace in the Middle-East, the Muslims will suspend judgment of Obama.

Obama has also made the right noises to China. Sending Hillary Clinton to East Asia first instead of Europe was a brilliant move. It showed Obama’s recognition that power is shifting to Asia. But China remains wary of Obama. It understood George W Bush. China is still trying to understand Obama. Curiously, the world’s largest democracy, India, is also wary. Manmohan Singh told Bush that he was “the best President vis-à-vis India in the past 50 years”. By contrast, Obama’s obsession with Afghanistan and Pakistan makes India fear that it would once again be paired with Pakistan. In short, Obama still has not won over the two most populous countries. Does he have the capacity to listen to their concerns?

Fortunately, Europe remains enraptured with Obama. Russia too is pleased that Bush is gone. Latin America is happy that Obama has reached out to Cuba. And, of course, the continent most in love with Obama is Africa. In short, he has unleashed new reservoirs of goodwill towards America in many corners of the world. Now, the world will wait to see whether his policies match these great expectations.


How would you rate the Obama Administration each of these objectives?

Download the Full PDF Scorecard at http://www.salzburgseminar.org/mediafiles/MEDIA48611.pdf