Foreign Relations within the Iraq War - Essay Example

The Iraq War and Foreign Relations War is one of the critical aspects that have often determined the taken by foreign relations. The Iraq war is one of the regional wars that served to alter foreign relations ideologies in a great deal. Critics have expressed varying opinions about the causes and impact of the war, and the consequences it caused. The war involved three regions namely, the Arab world, America and European. The onset if the Iraq war in 2003 resulted after the surging threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq. The September 2001 terrorist attack in the United States motivated the formulation of new strategies. Such strategies moved the United States to attack Iraq, drawing support from its European allies. Louise Fawcett and Raymond Hinnebusch are two of the analysts who have sought to define how the Iraq war redefined the global political arena and the positions held by certain states in the global society. Evidently, the war caused a shift in the understanding of foreign relations trends. However, these two analysts express competing perspectives on the shift on the global foreign relations. This paper will address the competing perspectives. Hinnebusch considers the effects of the Iraq war, stating that the smaller states were under a surging threat as a consequence of the war. After the September 2001 attack, the United States heightened its surveillance and vigilance system. Such heightened systems provided a timely expose that Iraq had become a growing hub of nuclear weapons that challenged global security. The United States made the move to wage war against Iraq, in a bid to destabilize it, and eliminate the threat it was posing to the global societal welfare. Evidently, political and security trends are some of the critical issues that determine the direction taken by social agendas. As expected, the United States received support from Europe, specifically from closest ally in the region, United Kingdom. According to Hinnebusch, such support served as a restraint for the emergence of some form of constraints to the development of the war in 2003. In his argument, he makes it evident that the United States was a hegemony that made all the critical decisions determining the direction of the war (Hinnebusch 453). After the attack, Bush sets new strategies that would define the war on terror. The evident position of America on a global front compels it to prove highly decisive in sensitive issues such as the emerging terror. America decided that it would engage the Iraq because of the threat it posed. Hinnebusch argues that all the other states only had to choose their stand depending on their relationship with the United States and the Middle East. The United Kingdom and japan exploited the opportunity to their advantage, a factor that altered the trends taken by foreign relations between these countries and the United States. However, smaller states had limited choice because they faced the greatest threat. The war affected numerous sectors of the global business front that in turn affected societies directly. The United States pursued personal interests, especially those tailored to promote its hegemony in the global economy. According to this critic, some countries defied the opinion expressed by their publics and confirmed their support for the united states because of the perceived benefits (Hinnebusch 457). The author describes how the hegemony stability order defines the strategies used by America to continue prevailing unconditionally. He further describes the global empire that America creates, that would serve to disadvantage the third world states because of the pressure it exerts on global economic and political scenarios. On the other hand, Fawcett explores the same issue, shedding new light on the effects of the Iraq war. According to him, may of the objectives of the war as never materialized despite the perception of the United States (Fawcett 328). Acting as a global hegemony, the United States never succeeded in replacing the dictatorial rule in Iraq with a democracy. In its efforts to promote democracy, the United States had hoped that its invasion would serve to alter the region’s perspective towards leadership and initiate democratization efforts. Although the Saddam Hussein leadership would finally destabilize, the country then stumbled into an undefined civil war (Fawcett 330). Evidently, this author highlights that most of the small states proved immune to the influence of the United States. On the contrary, the war fuelled the rising of new alliances within the Arab world. Such alliances occur on a religious basis, represent the concerted efforts of the region to defy American influence. This has served to shake the United States further, rather than affirm its superior standing. It challenges the capacity of a global hegemony to exert overwhelming influence on a region, a view that contrasts with Hinnebusch’s conviction that the United States has the potential to turn around the globe. Fawcett highlights that the Iraq war has only served to heighten the fears and insecurities the United States faces. Whereas Hinnebusch describes the war as a potential cause for bonding of America with some European countries, Fawcett describes the damage caused by the Iraq war to the transatlantic relations (Hinnebusch 459). Evidently, improved transatlantic relations have always served to define the global social order because of the ideologies of the west meeting the American strategies. Evidently, the United States has received heightened criticism from the west on the way it strategized on the Iraq war. Contrary to what Hinnebusch implies, the west exerted minimal impact of the war, since the onset of the war found Europe clueless of what would result. Recently, the formation of new ties of Arab monarchies with European countries serves to illustrate how Hinnebusch fails in defining the global dynamics of the war. According to Fawcett, the resulting international relations that have resulted from the war have only served to prove a compromise on the hegemony status of the United States (Fawcett 328). The war has resulted in new regional alignments evident from the interest shown by China and Russia in the Arab world in hopes of economic gain. Whereas Hinnebusch highlights how the war has the potential of placing the United States in a superior position to determine global trends in foreign relations, Fawcett highlights that the war has only challenged the capacity of a global hegemony to hinder or promote international relations. Evidently, the two authors exhibit competing perspectives on the position of the United States in influencing the global society. Whereas Hinnebusch believes that, the United States can pose a threat to the smaller states as it continues to pursue its interests in the Arab world, Fawcett shows that the emerging impact is much more complex, challenging the superior position of the United States. The war has changed the course of foreign relations in the last decade, and the consequences will affect the global society in the future as well. Work Cited Fawcett, Louise. The Iraq War ten years on: assessing the fallout. International Affairs89: 2 (2013): 325–343. Print. Hinnebusch, Raymond. The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19.3(2006): 451-463. Print. Read More