The following report aims to answer the question as to whether the principles of US foreign policy have really changed in the 21st century.
The discussion of the US foreign policy will be organised chronologically. First, the principles adopted by G.W. Bush’s administration will be investigated while drawing comparisons to the previous administrations, notably Clinton’s and George H.W. Bush’s presidencies. Further, the approach adopted by the new administration led by Obama will be analysed and finally, conclusions will be drawn.
The main part of the report will deal with national security issues, in particular, with problems associated with the Middle East, as this region has dominated US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. However, the report will also shortly outline the US position with regards to the global economy and environmental issues.
The 21st century certainly has seen several shifts in the US foreign policy principles, some more dramatic than others. Bush’s and Obama’s administrations, while both following similar goals in general, showed distinctive differences in the approaches to the foreign policy.
Inhalt
1. Introduction.
2. Bush’s administration and 9/11
2.1. National security policy
2.2. Global economy and environment
3. A change under Obama administration?
4. Conclusions
5. References
1.Introduction
The following report aims to answer the question as to whether the principles of US foreign policy have really changed in the 21st century.
The discussion of the US foreign policy will be organised chronologically. First, the principles adopted by G.W. Bush’s administration will be investigated while drawing comparisons to the previous administrations, notably Clinton’s and George H.W. Bush’s presidencies. Further, the approach adopted by the new administration led by Obama will be analysed and finally, conclusions will be drawn.
The main part of the report will deal with national security issues, in particular, with problems associated with the Middle East, as this region has dominated US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. However, the report will also shortly outline the US position with regards to the global economy and environmental issues.
2. Bush’s administration and 9/11
2.1. National security policy
When G.W. Bush took office as the president of the US, his approach to the foreign affairs suggested a new realism combined with a heightened tendency for unilateralism (Kane, 2009, p.9). The administration’s national security policy was primarily focused on transforming the military, notably on developing a National Missile Defence (NMD) system, which was, despite wide ranging criticism, justified by a need to protect itself from limited attacks from terrorist group or ‘rogue states’. In fact, the administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build this system (Fischer, 2008, p.138).
With regards to the international affairs Bush pledged not to involve US in ‘nation-building’, thus suggesting a more restrained foreign policy (Herbert, 2006, p.235). However, the events of 9/11 transformed not only the US foreign policy but the whole political situation dramatically. On the 20th September President G.W. Bush declared in his address to the Congress:
“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbour terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” (Bush, 2001).
Hence, as opposed to the two post-Cold War administrations led by Bush Sr. and Clinton both of whom struggled with development and articulation of a clear, publicly defensible foreign policy strategy and vision (Dumbrell, 2008, p.91-103), Bush Jr. administration could restore, as a result of the terrorist attacks, the issue of national security as the central principle for US foreign policy.
Consequently, not only the administration’s attitude to the world and the resulting policies but also the leadership style of Bush changed as the presidential leadership was once again reaffirmed (Dumbrell, 2003, p.276). Despite his initial weaknesses in foreign policy, Bush began to assert his leadership after the 9/11 (Abelson, 2009, p.101). This was reinforced by a tight management and centralisation of his team, which led to an exclusion of wider input of personnel and thus reduced the expertise of policy makers (Peele, 2006, p.89).
A consequence was a foreign policy that was underpinned by administration’s new principles, which were embodied in what became known as the ‘War on Terror’ and the ‘Bush Doctrine’. Its key elements as defined by Singh (2006, p.12) were:
- policy of ‘pre-emption’
- ‘regime change’ for ‘rogue states’
- democracy promotion
- confronting the nexus of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and catastrophic terrorism.
Shortly after the attacks Congress had passed a resolution, which authorised the use of force against the terrorists. From this point, the machinery of an aggressive military action was set in motion (Crockatt, 2003, p.147).
Given that the Taliban regime was broadly perceived to be illegitimate, US received wide international support for the invasion in Afghanistan; however, the war in Iraq was broadly condemned. After all, neither did Iraq possess WMD, nor had it substantive links to al Qaeda (Finlan, 2006, p.160). Even more, Iraq invasion did not receive UN mandate, thus for the first time in the modern era US took a pre-emptive action without the support of a broad alliance of countries (McKay, 2009, p.420-421). In addition, Bush had nominated in his famous ‘Axis of Evil’ Iran and North Korea as further potential threats (Crockatt, 2003, p.157).
According to Herbert (2006, p.238) ‘Bush’s Doctrine’ can be regarded as a fundamental assault upon the international order. Although US had pursued regime change covertly in the past, now it was publicly claiming the right to intervene anywhere in the world ignoring any international norms, conventions and treaties. And while in military terms the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ended with a clear victory, it is questionable, whether these were political victories (Fischer, 2008, p.140-143). There have been substantial insurgencies developing in both countries as a result and many (Rogers, 2008, p.366; Dodge, 2008, p.234; McKay, 2009, p.424) point to the ‘backlash’ and the increased radicalisation.
At the end Bush Jr. had rejected both the ‘narrow realism’ of Bush Sr. as well as the ‘wishful liberalism’ of Clinton. Instead he had embarked on a ‘distinctly American internationalism’ and a maximalist foreign policy (Singh, 2006, p.18). Some authors claim that the policy pursued by Bush after 9/11 reflects the neo-conservative agenda, particularly with regards to the Iraq invasion (Herbert, 2006, p.238; Rosen, 2005). However, Singh (2009, p.38,45) argues that neither the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the design or execution of the wars were neo-conservative. Also Krauthammer regards Bush’s approach not as much neo-conservatism as ‘democratic realism’ (2006, p.15-25). Nevertheless, the influence of the neo-conservatives on Bush’s administration has been well established (Hirst, 2009, p.119).
[...]
- Quote paper
- Linda Vuskane (Author), 2010, US foreign policy in 21st century, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/156383
