President Obama’s foreign policy campaign promises included phrases like “change,” “unilateralism,” and “just words?” He promised a new approach to the world and was explicit about how his policies would contrast with “failed” Bush policies. Primary among his accusations was that Bush’s foreign policies were belligerent and unilateral. Obama’s policies would break markedly from Bush’s. This would mean more multilateralism, accommodation of allies, and success in achieving U.S. interests and global stability.

After nearly a year in office, have Obama’s foreign policy “changes” made progress towards promised outcomes? North Korea and Iran are closer to proliferation. Iraq and Afghanistan are still plagued with bombings despite Obama’s much-acclaimed speech to Muslims in Cairo. Russia is still distributing passports in Crimea and refuses to substantively cooperate on Iranian proliferation despite Obama’s unilateral missile defense concessions and toothless resolutions (to which Tehran responded by increasing enrichment). The Guantanamo Bay prison facility, the subject of Obama’s triumphant first-day photo op, remains open (and Obama says he will not close the facility as soon as promised). If Obama’s approach is a “change” from Bush, why has Washington made no progress towards improved foreign policy outcomes?

Obama has done much to change America’s image with the populations of the world (which has merit). There is no reason to rhetorically alienate our allies, and an improved U.S. image can only strengthen Muslim moderates in their struggle against radicals. Conservatives underestimate the benefits of engagement—they criticized Nixon despite success with Egypt, China, and the Soviets, and they criticized Reagan for engaging Gorbachev. Nixon’s diplomatic accomplishments, though, reflected carefully crafted geopolitical developments, not campaign one-liners. Indeed, Nixon’s concrete achievement with Cairo is a stark contrast to Obama’s rhetorical posturing there. Without improved outcomes, the world will not be safer, whatever the masses think of Obama. Rhetoric does not change the interests of states and regimes. Still, though, should not Obama’s new multilateral approach to global affairs have made some change in outcomes?

The reason outcomes have not improved is that Obama’s strategy is not “new.” The notion that Bush approached foreign policy in a unilateral way is a myth. Perhaps the myth was created in Germany or France, where policymakers and public assume that any American actions without the blessing of Berlin and Paris are “unilateral.” Perhaps the myth was generated by Democrats like Obama for political gain. Regardless, the myth lacks a foundation in fact—media enthusiasm notwithstanding. Bush approached proliferation in North Korea through multilateral six-party talks. He approached Iranian proliferation through the UN and IAEA, and he was developing missile defense assets to mitigate the Iranian threat through multilateral agreements with Eastern European partners. The Iraq invasion, though mistaken, involved the UN ignoring its own resolutions and, finally, a multilateral invasion force including the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, and others. The Afghanistan invasion involved NATO and even logistical assistance from Moscow. When Russia invaded Georgia, Bush deferred to the EU. Amidst Obama’s glib assertions about “unilateralism,” clear-thinking Americans might have wondered: “What unilateralism?” That Obama and others have been so successful in embedding this myth in American consciousness reflects poorly on American political and intellectual sophistication.

The “failed policies of the Bush Administration” failed, not because of Bush’s supposed unilateralism as Obama asserted so profitably, but because multilateral mechanisms are plagued by conflicts of interest and diplomatic gridlock. Obama’s changes to U.S. foreign policy are primarily cosmetic. The North Korea and Iran debacles are still mired in six-party talks and the UN, respectively. The Iraq drawdown was started by Bush—no change there. The closing of Guantanamo failed because Obama learned, as Bush already knew, that closing the prison is not as easy as promising adoring fans to do so; and, predictably, Obama declined to invest personal political capital in keeping the promise.

Obama’s few substantive changes to foreign policy are not the multilateralist promises of the campaign. Perhaps hoping that Kissinger was wrong when he noted that rational diplomats avoid paying for services already rendered (or perhaps never having read Kissinger’s 900-page masterpiece), Obama unilaterally withdrew plans for missile defense assets in Eastern Europe to the chagrin of U.S. allies—a betrayal more akin to Obama’s caricature of Bush than to his own quixotic promises—wistfully hoping that Russia would respond by helping with Iran (a mistake common for those lacking foreign policy acumen). Obama betrayed allies in Beijing with his belligerent, unilateral September 11 tariff. The new troop increase in Afghanistan was hardly developed through a multilateral process—Washington’s NATO allies would rather abandon the project. If the president is lucky, the plan will have stabilizing effects similar to Bush’s “surge,” which Obama criticized. It seems, then, that Obama’s mantra of “change” amounts to “just words” at best and increasing unilateralism at worst.

Obama’s foreign policy promises have generated no change in outcomes for two reasons: First, most of them depart from Bush’s strategies only cosmetically; and second, his speeches alone have not persuaded foreign leaders as they did swooning American college students. The substantive changes he has made have been unilateral, and convincing Iran or Russia to recalculate their own interests according to Washington’s wishes will require more than charm. While the U.S. has certainly benefitted from Obama’s public relations, his lack of understanding of the full meaning of “diplomacy” has rendered impotent his global influence and reduced Washington’s credibility. In Roosevelt’s words, 2009 has been a “shattering of many illusions” for the naïve president and his devoted supporters as he has learned about geopolitical reality.

Ryan is a senior studying political science and economics.