Timothy A. Ridout 

In Havana, President Obama told an audience at the Gran Teatro, “I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas.” He went on to discuss the troubled past between Cuba and the United States, in addition to extolling the virtues of multiparty democracy. In Buenos Aires, the president discussed the U.S. role in the early years of Argentina’s Dirty War, saying, “There’s been controversy about the policies of the United States early in those dark days, and the United States, when it reflects on what happened here, has to examine its own policies as well and its own past… Democracies have to have the courage to acknowledge when we don’t live up to the ideals that we stand for.”

Remarks such as these inevitably upset a significant portion of the U.S. political and foreign policy communities. They come at a time when a controversial tell-all article by Jeffrey Goldberg about the “Obama Doctrine” continues to reverberate in Washington. These conversations are inevitably linked to philosophical differences on the perennial questions about morality and idealism, pragmatism, and the limits of state power in international politics. Whether people self-identify as “realists,” “liberal internationalists,” “constructivists,” or some other simplifying label masks the reality that most humans struggle to balance competing imperatives amidst uncertainty and limited capacities.

There is no better teacher than personal experience, but being aware of history is crucially important to understand the world as it is today. President Obama knows this and has publicly exhibited greater recognition of the past than many in the United States would like. He has sought throughout his presidency to carefully balance conciliatory gestures with intense domestic disagreement about whether the United States should acknowledge certain actions. Some believe this is a sign of weakness, and that we should rarely if ever apologize for anything. Obama clearly rejects this thinking, and he tends to bring with it a vision for a better future.

I am more in line with Obama’s philosophy. When the weight of evidence points toward certain conclusions, I believe it is a sign of strength to have the courage to acknowledge unpleasant facts about oneself or one’s country. It can be hard, but it is part of how people and societies move past painful memories. It demonstrates that learning has occurred. Additionally, foreign policy thinkers who discount certain facts because of natural human defensiveness tend to underestimate the depth of sentiment in other nations, and their analyses about causality and intentions are flawed as a result.

Of course, all people are subject to these biases, and competing narratives in international politics tend to be distorted versions of a theoretical objective truth about the course of human history. Many people blame the United States for all of their woes, overinflating the impact of U.S. actions and discounting their own agency. This is a self-defeating mistake. But regardless of differing interpretations of events and their relative importance, the U.S. government has supported military coups and human rights abuses in the Americas and elsewhere, especially during the Cold War. Other nations have certainly done worse, but pretending that we are perfect while lecturing others about their failings is transparently hypocritical. No one is fooled.

Civic discourse among nations about contentious issues is always fraught with tension. It is hard enough in domestic contexts, let alone across international borders. This can be seen in angry denouncements in the United States about Obama’s “appeasement” of the Cuban government as well as protests in Miami and Buenos Aires about the visits.

Self-determination and non-interference in domestic affairs are core elements of the international system, but our destinies are interconnected and our actions inevitably impact each other, so these principles tend to blur at the edges. We have differing visions of how to organize our societies and incentivize hard work, which basic needs and human rights should be prioritized in an imperfect world, and what a good life entails. But we need to be able to talk about our differences with a certain degree of civility and mutual respect. As President Obama put it in Havana when discussing the virtues of the U.S. economic and political system, “I can’t force you to agree, but you should know what I think.”

No one is perfect and I disagree with some of Obama’s decisions over the years, but I agree with his general philosophy. It is my sincere hope that the next U.S. president will continue to engage in the Americas and around the world based on the principles of mutual interest and mutual respect, modeling the behavior that we hope to elicit from others.

 Continue Reading our Special Dossier: Obama in Cuba and Argentina