Cold war 1989-1991 under Bush's Administration - Essay Example

Subject: History and Political Science, Essay Date: Topic: Cold War 1989-1991 under Bushs Administration Introduction Intervention is the consequential action of the decision making process. That was beset with many conflicting problems with Bush Administration. Earth-shaking events in some part of the world, does not mean that America has to intervene, when its interests are not at stake.

The period 1989-1991 was the crucial one for Russia, and for the ideology of Communism in particular, when the churning process was going on. The Bush Administration encountered many situations for which it had to consider the option of intervention with military force. The post-Cold War conflicts were ethnic, nationalist, separatist and ideological in nature. The barometer to consider whether or not to intervene was different in each case.No superpower competition The important characteristics of post-Cold War conflicts were that they did not relate to superpower completion. U.S.

interests did not face severe threat, as it was in the Cold War calculus. The strife at far-off places was not of consequence to the national security of U.S. and the vital interests were more or less secure, with no compelling reasons to intervene. There was no confrontation with Soviet Union who was once the dangerous contender for U.S. interests. With the end of the Cold War, trouble fomented at various spots leading to a series of events of inter-state aggression. U.S. had no decisive platform to intervene, either political or legal.

Its foreign policy was against, “interference in the internal affairs of others." U.S. could not pursue a policy of isolationist, it needed active political and economic support from governments and U.S. was averse to set forth precedents which affected their relations with other countries. Another important consideration was about adherence to international law governing interventions. Without the correct international legal rationale, any intervention would be termed as an act of self-seeking, with motivated desires and with hidden agenda.

Confusing world scenario Decisions for intervention needed to be taken, explained and defended. The break-up of the Soviet Union was an important development, but no American interests were threatened. Besides, it was an ideological conflict and power-struggle between two factions, both owing allegiance to Communism. Intervention decisions have far-reaching economic implications, besides the need for solid domestic support. In the confusing world scenario, with many set of actions taking place simultaneously in different parts of the world, the decision-making process cannot be expected to be orderly and well-structured.

That the issue will be listed in the agenda of the decision makers on account of intensive media coverage in the entire world or a part of the world does not mean that the decision to intervene needs to be taken. For example, in the final analysis it is Bush who had to take the decision whether the confrontation in Yugoslavia was an act of civil war or a humanitarian tragedy.Hands-off role played by Bush Administration A question that constantly engaged Bush was the role of U.S. in the post-Cold-War period that was hailed as the new world order and protection of U.S. interests in the changed set of circumstances. U.S.

was utilizing this period as the one learning from experience. The experts were formulating the checklist for intervention and that was the handy asset for Bush to take decisions. Initially, the decision making process was addressed by the Deputies Committee and then referred to Cabinet-level officials before being tendered to the President for the final decision. He has to take into opinion both the civilian and military aspects on the intervention. Therefore, decision-making turns out to be probabilistic and context-dependent.

The most important underlying issue is not to intervene unless there is a high probability of success. Taking the above factors into consideration, the hands-off role played by Bush Administration is justifiable. The time of Cold War was entirely different and U.S. had strong reasons to defend its position against the Superpower Soviet Russia, which was then its contender (enemy) number one. The passive role during 1989-1991 was correct and there was no cause for intervene more forcefully. In his book “Decision Points,” George W Bush (2011) writes, “Decades from now, I hope people will view me as a President who recognized the central challenge of our time and kept my vow to keep the country safe; who pursued my convictions without wavering but changed course when necessary.”(p.476) Critical decisions shaped his Presidency, which were mostly correct.

Conclusion The bloodless revolution in Czechoslovakia, the violence in Romania resulting in the defeat of Communism and change of political leadership, the breaking up of the Soviet Union (the Baltic States were annexed by Stalin in 1940), the trouble to the leadership of Gorbachev and his eventual resignation, were all serious issues but did not merit the military intervention by U.S. under the leadership of George Bush. ReferencesBush George W. (2011) Decision Points. Broadway