Foreign Policy Analysis - Case Study Example

Foreign Policy Analysis B1. The doctrine concerning President George Bush’s right to attack s purported to harbor or support terrorists besides pursuing the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) received diverse opinions. In spite of the widespread consensus on the need to confront terrorism and slow down proliferation of the WMD, the “Bush Doctrine” divided the world opinion and reopened the numerous questions about the international politics1. During the buildup of the war, states such as Canada, Brazil, China, German, Mexico, France, and Russia spoke against the Iraq war preempted by the Bush Doctrine2. The leaders from various states including France warned against the American military action and referred to it as illegitimate, and threatening the future of the UN3. Additionally, it undermined the international support against terrorism, and creating novel threats to transnational security and peace.4 The policy makers viewed the decision of the US to invade Iraq as a preemptive decision based on its interests rather than the safeguard of international security and peace5. The sates held that the American government aimed to broaden its notion of self-defense regardless of the state of the international security. Therefore, many states such as France and Germany did not support the war against Iraq. The international society viewed war as the last resort, and posed challenges to the US to demonstrate whether it had pursued the possible peaceful options specifically for the disarmament of Iraq6. For instance, the president of France Jacques Chirac claimed that war is an admission of defeat as is the worst of the solutions. He added that states must pursue all the avenues to avoid war. As evidenced, the French leaders also condemned the preemptive war against Iraq but maintained that the disarmament of Iraq can be peaceful. For instance, Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister held a view that Iraq can be disarmed through peaceful ways.7 B2 Due to the self-interests of Germany and France concerning the oil and construction industries, they opted for the support of the ultimatum of the UK/US. Further, they offered support to the war to disarmer Iraq because of the geopolitical factors such as the expressed wish of the elites to create the independent defenses and foreign polices from NATO8. Moreover, the interests of the international elites seemed to be important as opposed to the specific interests of the oil and construction industries. In addition, the German and the French governments had shown frantic efforts to repair their relationships with America, tough the latter threatened to punish them, especially the French, for the stand held during the Iraq war.9 During the discussions on the war against terror, the French and German Foreign Ministers argued that America’s unilateral decisions to launch war against Iraq favoured its national interests rather than those of the world. For instance, the Foreign Minister of German Joschka Fischer warned that the alliances evidenced between the free democracies need not to be reduced to a state of following and the alliance partners do not make satellites. Similarly, the Foreign Minister of France Hubert Vedrine expressed the worry that the US was acting unilaterally minus consultations from other states. He affirmed that the US was acting based on its worldview and own interests. Hence, the situation seemed to threaten the interests of the other states. For instance, France had vast construction and oil industries in Iraq; therefore, attacking it will thwart its establishments and investments. Further, Vedrine held that the simplistic worldview of Washington was problematic because, if it is not the vision of the world, then it is not the vision of the international relationships.10 Because of the vast differences in the policies and doctrines, many commentators and policy makers hold that there exist serious divides that separates the US from its closest allies and friends. For example, Robert Kagan, a neoconservative analyst emphasized that many politicians and leading officials worry about the how the US will handle the Iraq problem. He asserts that many states in Europe see the US as an outlaw and serving as a potential “rogue colossus.” B3. Giving the international inspectors ample time to complete their report on WMDs From the BBC’s interview by David Frost to Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister on the war against Iraq, there is an emergence of an alternative to end the war on terror. Villepin asserts that there are inspectors on the ground that are composing reports on the state of the ownership of weapons of mass destruction, thus, it is important to await the report before taking any action. He also claimed that the rule of the game should rest upon the 1441 because they are the hands and the eyes of the international community in Iraq. He asserts that Iraq might be doing something about disarmament though it may not be enough and that is a job under the discretion of the inspectors. As an alternative to launch war on Iraq, the inspectors need time to finalize their reports and give an account on what is going on in that particular state. For instance, Villepin pointed out to the assertions of Mr. El Baradei that in some few months they can certify whether Iraq has nuclear programmes. Therefore, it is crucial to allow them an ample time to prepare their evidence. The French Foreign Minister conceded that there are progresses in the reduction of missiles; hence, it is evident that there can be progresses in the biological and chemical programmes11. Further, the minister notes that the international community has a chance to disarm Iraq peacefully. He ascertains that it is illogical to launch war on Iraq because many states possess weapons meant for mass destruction, effecting the situation means that war shall be the sole case to disarm the states in the Middle East that possess such weapons.12 Persuasion as opposed to military war Combinations of both external and internal forces on regimes that are dictatorial can offer a leeway to persuade the authorities and coerce them either to allow a democratic nation or to step down. To start with, dictators the world over are vulnerable and depend on the complicity and cooperation of the numerous numbers of people13. Essentially, the dictators’ authority is dependent upon fear as opposed to the legitimacy of the public. Thus, the international community for security and peace could have provided “carrots” that ensure a step down of Sadam’s regime or “sticks” to pressure them step down. Persuasion brings peaceful change as opposed to the use of military force. Consequentially, the international community should have used such tactics of persuasion before the US launching its war on Iraq.14 Through this method, the policy maker could have involved and offered support to the internal movements that push for democracy. The democratic movements could have helped the situation and stopped the US from instigating forceful military action. B4. Failure of support to the foreign policy Joining an international war attracts a price in terms of expectations, conditions, and demands. Due to this concern, many nations such as France and German did not support the war against Iraq’s disarmament, and the situation led to coherence in the failures of the foreign policy15. The backdrop of the membership in the UN assemblies led to the massive failure of the foreign policy. Due to the controversial decision held by the supporting states on forceful disarmament of Iraq, most nations saw it preemptive to indulge in such war. They withdrew their support, a situation that is not a success on the foreign policy.16 Insufficient troops to topple the Iraq government Due to the withdrawal of the other states from involvement on the war against Iraq, the US did not supply enough troops to launch the invasion. The foreign policy to initiate a war against Iraq failed to prevent the looting that occurred during the war. Considerable evidence holds that the policy failed to coerce the US to ensure full control on the actions of looting. The evidence demonstrates that the US did not take action to control looting since they aimed at capturing the symbolism of the Iraq state in attacking the Ba’athist’s regime.17 Relationships between France and Iraq and France’s decision France and Iraq had nourishing relationships before the decision of the US to invade Iraq. Evidentially, France had multinational corporations operating in the region; they had a myriad of businesses both in oil and construction industries. Thus, offering the support to the war against Iraq will facilitate a negative impression that will affect their relations. Due to this perspective, the government of France decided not to support the war against Iraq. In addition, It is evident that the government of Iraq has vast barrels of oil and any state eyeing to benefit from better relations has no reason to support war against its counterpart. Bibliography British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). March 2, 2003. Dominique de Villepin against war. Web. May 15, 2015. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/2812811.stm O'Connor, Brendon, and Katherine Delaney. 2009. "The ABC and Anti-Americanism: The Case of the 2003 Iraq War and Minister Alston." Australian Journal of Political Science 44, no. 3: 389-404. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Fisher, David, and Nigel Biggar. "Was Iraq an unjust war? A debate on the Iraq war and reflections on Libya." International Affairs 87, no. 3 (May 2011): 687-707. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Fisher, Louis. "Deciding on War Against Iraq: Institutional Failures." Political Science Quarterly (Academy Of Political Science) 118, no. 3 (Fall2003 2003): 389-410. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Kreps, Sarah E. 2008. "Multilateral Military Interventions: Theory and Practice." Political Science Quarterly (Academy Of Political Science) 123, no. 4: 573-603. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Linden, Ronald H. "The burden of belonging: Romanian and Bulgarian foreign policy in the new era." Journal of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies 11, no. 3 (September 2009): 269-291. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Linke, Andrew M., Witmer, Frank D. W., and O’loughlin John. Space-Time Granger Analysis of the War in Iraq: A study of Collition and Insurgent Action-Reaction. International Interactions, 38(402), 402-425 Mason, T. David. "Ending the War in Iraq: The Third Option." Civil Wars 14, no. 2 (June 2012): 205-227. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Taydaş, Zeynep, and Özgür Özdamar. "A Divided Government, an Ideological Parliament, and an Insecure Leader: Turkey's Indecision about Joining the Iraq War*." Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 94, no. 1 (March 2013): 217-241. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Dombrowski, Peter, and Rodger A. Payne. 2003. "Global Debate and the Limits of the Bush Doctrine." International Studies Perspectives 4, no. 4: 395-408. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). De Castro Santos, Maria Helena, and Ulysses Tavares Teixeira. "The essential role of democracy in the Bush Doctrine: the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan." Revista Brasileira De Política Internacional 56, no. 2 (December 2013): 131-156. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Shen, Douglas Kriner Francis. Responding to War on Capitol Hill: battlefield Casualities, Congressional Response, and Public Support for the War in Iraq. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 157-174. Fotopoulos, Takis. "Iraq: The New Criminal 'War' of the Transnational Elite." Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 9, no. 2 (July 2003): 167. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 15, 2015). Read More