Special to WorldTribune.com

by Dr. Jack Caravelli, Geostrategy-Direct

The retrenchment of U.S. foreign policy under Barack Obama is triggering major changes in relations with formerly stout allies around the globe.

In Europe, Asia and the Middle East, trust in the Obama administration among U.S. allies is at an all-time low and reflected in numerous policy decisions, undermining one the America’s most important foreign policy assets.

The success of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II era is attributable to various factors, including broad conventional military force and nuclear weapons capabilities as well as economic strength.

An equally important and often overlooked foreign policy component is the system of alliances and relationships past U.S. administrations have developed across the globe. Those relationships are mutually beneficial, advancing U.S. interests in those regions while adding a layer of security to our allies.

This network of alliances also stands in contrast to the foreign policies of U.S. adversaries Russia and China. Both nations maintain some important political relationships — Russia’s support of Syria comes to mind — but their relations with neighboring countries often are strained. Few nations on Russia’s periphery or in China’s case South Asia have much trust in their powerful neighbors.

For the United States, relationships with the United Kingdom, Japan and Israel have plummeted. The result is the pursuit by these nations of policies that are much less supportive than in the past of U.S. leadership and foreign policy priorities.

In the United Kingdom, David Cameron and his Conservative Party have just won re-election by a surprisingly large margin. The prime minister’s relationship with President Obama is best described as “proper” but there are no close personal ties like those that marked relationships between past U.S. presidents and UK counterparts.

The UK also is drifting from its past close adherence to U.S. policy directions, eagerly joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank being established by China against Washington’s wishes. Once NATO’s second most important military power, the British are focusing spending on domestic requirements and in the process gutting their troop levels to the lowest number of soldiers in uniform in over a century.

This year Britain will fail to meet a pledge by all NATO members to spend two percent of GDP on defense preparedness. Replacement of the aging Trident nuclear program is far from assured; failure to do so could leave the UK without a nuclear deterrent and weaken NATO in the process.

British foreign policy priorities, once often in lock-step with Washington, also are drifting apart from the Obama administration. Cameron’s government is more concerned about keeping Scotland as part of the United Kingdom than playing an active role in various regional crises.

On the contrary, the British are playing a minor role in shaping the West’s most challenging problems, notably confronting Russia over its annexation of Crimea and contributing resources to the fight against jihadist extremism in the Middle East. Perhaps most telling, Cameron is doing little to rally British public opinion for a more robust foreign policy on these issues.

In Asia, the Japanese long have relied on U.S. defense assistance, including a “nuclear umbrella.”

But in the face of growing Chinese political and military assertiveness and a U.S. “pivot to Asia” that has yet to produce much substance, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is bringing change to Japanese security policy.

In late April, Abe became the first Japanese prime minister to address a joint session of Congress. The highlight of the speech was Abe’s assertion that Japan “is resolved to take yet more responsibility for the peace and stability in the world.”

Those words have been translated into a series of practical steps. The Japanese defense budget is being ramped up while a new secrecy act allows Japan to enhance intelligence sharing with key allies.

Moreover, Japan is moving from its almost complete and constitutionally mandated reliance on the U.S. security commitments to allow the Japanese military to carry out a broader range of military activities, including for the first time support to future U.S. military operations.

The Japanese case illustrates the complexity of changing international politics. Since his earliest days as prime minister, Abe has been a strong advocate for increased flexibility in Japanese military operations according to a Japanese national with routine access to senior political circles in Tokyo.

Abe moved slowly, our source says, because public opinion in Japan was (and remains) sharply divided over changing the military’s rules of engagement.

It is the combination of China’s growing regional assertiveness, coupled with the Obama administration’s perceived failure to carry out its declared intention to bolster its Asia policy, that’s tipped the balance in Abe’s mind toward revising Japan’s policy on the use of its military. At the same time, Abe, like other Asian leaders, is lured by the prospects of increased trade with China even as it keeps a wary eye on Beijing’s regional policies.

Finally, decades of unshakable U.S.-Israeli relations have foundered on the bitter personal relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The split focuses over Obama’s relentless push to conclude a nuclear deal with Iran — which the prime minister views as hopelessly naïve — and Israel’s settlements policy and refusal to advance peace negotiations with Palestine.

There remain positive elements to these troubled bilateral relationships. Abe’s speech in Washington, for example, reaffirmed the value Japan places on a continuing U.S. military presence in Asia. The U.S. also continues to maintain strong military and intelligence exchanges, for example, with Israel.

Nonetheless, the broader and worrisome trend of allies slowly pulling away from Washington’s orbit is becoming increasingly apparent and is further exacerbated by the administration’s refusal to acknowledge the consequences of important nations who no longer implicitly trust and rely upon U.S. foreign policy leadership.

  America’s crucial credibility abroad declines with the loss of trust — and respect, Barack Obama, Shinzo Abe, WorldTribune.com