The Extent to Which Barack Obama Will Be to Change the Directions of the US Foreign Policy - Essay Example

The Extent to Which Barack Obama Will Be to Change the Directions of the US Foreign Policy The Extent to Which Barack Obama Will Be to Change the Directions of the US Foreign Policy Any Nations foreign policy is as a result of varied forces. The forces could be as a result of country’s economic conditions, special issues that that may arise from time to time and the dynamic ambitions of a country not to forget the foreign rivalries (Pauly, 2010). The most important contributions of America to the study of political history and social sciences is the study of its political traditions. The book by Richard Hofstadter (The American Political Tradition, 1948), American Exceptionalism by Seymour Martin Lipset and Louis Hartz’s, the Liberal tradition in America were three great works in the political field. The traditional politics are crucial to enhancing the prediction of the future trend of any country foreign policy US included. The history will give a clear picture of how the US have been relating with other countries and, therefore, a prediction of the trend for plans in the future (Altan, 2006). A political party in the opposition in a democratic country may also affect the way the party in powers comes up with solutions to matters that arise in that country. The interaction between the leading party and the opposition results to a defined way of a countries relationship with other nations. It may also be due to factors that affect domestic subjects and more in particular when the matters involved have a character that can be used to arouse the interest of the public or public prejudice (Friedman & Mandelboum, 2011). The way the US interacts with interacts with foreign nations in accordance to the set standards of interaction between originations, corporations and even by individual citizens constitute the US foreign policy. There are set goals that are officially stated in the foreign policy agenda of the US department of state. The goals are set forward to build to build and sustain a more democratic and secure and prosperous world for the benefit of both the people of America and those in the International world. The shaping of foreign policy by a nation is determined by the interest of a Nation that covers a wide range of economic, political, humanitarian concerns and ideological goals (Flynn, 2004). In understanding the US foreign policy, it is advisable to look at the goals of the foreign policy which include; a) To promote the peace of the world and to ensure a secure global environment. b) Maintaining the United states national security c) Working with allies to solve international problems. d) Maintaining a balance of powers among various world nations. e) Promoting the human rights and democratic rights. f) The final goal is to further the cooperative foreign trade and the involvement of the global world in the international trade organizations. Close examination of these goals is a clear revelation that the goals are all based on the United States cooperation with other world nations. However, there is the goal set to preserve the peace of the United States. The goal on security is an implication that there is the possibility of competition and conflict between USA and some of the international world nations. Historical overview of the US foreign policy The US has grown to a world power that is a shift from non-interventionism that was before the World War II since the start of the revolution in US. The US policy has also since the 19th century been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the Wilsonian school of international relations (Indyk, Lieberthal, O’Hanlon, 2012). The themes of the US foreign policy initially included the observation of good faith and justice towards all the world nations that would lead to the cultivation of peace and harmony. However, there were exceptions where there were inveterate antipathies against a number of nations whereas there was an attachment for others (Winter, 2005). These themes of US foreign policy were expressed by George Washington in his farewell address. Conducting good relations with the almost 200 world countries is the central function of the US government. There has been a gradual change in the way America conducts Foreign policy that is a reflection of the change in its National interest. After the revolutionary war, the nation of America had a prime national interest to maintain its independence from the most European countries. The Americans major foreign policy as it was typified by the Doctrine of Monroe was to limit the attempts by the Europeans further to colonize the western Hemisphere (Serena, 2011). America concentrated on creating a nation that would through the continent during the 19th century. It, therefore, tried to avoid entanglements with the foreign countries. After its industrialization and prosperity, the United States began looking colonies and foreign markets (Dobson & Marsh, 2002). Making and Carrying out of Foreign Policy. The president of the US negotiates and signs treaties with foreign nations subject to the advice and consent role of the US senate. However, these treaties enter into force if ratified by 2/3 of the senate of the US (Kaplon, 2012). The current structure of the United States Government is as follows: In accordance to the US constitution, much of the foreign nation policy decision making is given to the presidency. Nevertheless, the ratifying role is given to the senate. The role of the interpretation of the treaties made is mandated to the Supreme Court (Cox & Stokes, 2008). The first major foreign policy by Obama was made by him during his campaign in April 2007. The speech was given to the global affairs council of Chicago. In his speech on foreign policy, he outlined his objectives and stressed on five key points, which are as follows: a) Focusing on the important challenges the greater region of Iraq as they bring a responsible end the war in Iraq. b) He also promised to build the first truly military of the twenty-first century and show wisdom on how they would deploy it. c) He mentioned too that his government would marshal a global effort that would comfortably meet any threat that would arise. Above all the others, urgently, there is destruction and coming to an end to the mass spread of weapons to stop destruction. d) The fourth key point was to rebuild and construct the alliances plus the partnerships that would be crucial to meet mutual encounters and confront common threats that might arise along the way. e) The final stressed key point was to remind the America not to forget that the citizens of these nations are the ones that sustain them as America continue to help others build more secure societies. After been elected, Obama nominated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to serve as his state secretary. Clinton stated that she believed that reducing global threats while seizing global opportunities to design and at the same time implement global solutions was the best way that America would advance in its interest. She stated that using smart power would be the best way in van-guarding the foreign policy of the United States. With less than a week after getting into office Clinton called over 40 foreign leaders and assured the world that America was eager to see a new American foreign policy. She recognized and said that there is a lot along the world to repair (Woods, 2012). Hillary Clinton also indicated that not only every past policy that would be repudiated but also said that it was essential for the sixty party talks over the nuclear weapon programs in north Korea would continue (Laidi, 2012). The foreign policy personnel of Barack Obama’s administration is summarized in the table below. President Barack Obama 2009 - present Vice President Joe Biden ( 2009 – present ) Secretary of state Hillary Clinton ( 2009 – 2013 ) John Forbes Kerry ( 2013 – present ) Secretary of defence Robert Gates ( 2006 – 2011 ) Leon Panetta ( 2011 – 2013 ) Chuck Hagel ( 2013 - present ) Ambassador to the united nations Susan Rice ( 2009 – 2013 ) Samantha Power ( 2013 –present ) Director of National intelligence Dennis C. Blair ( 2009 -2010 ) David Gompert ( 2010 ) James R. Clapper ( 2010 - Present) Director of Central intelligence agency Leon Panetta ( 2009 - 2011) Michael Morell (2011) David Petraeus ( 2011 – 2012 ) Michael Morell ( 2012 – 2013 ) John Brennan ( 2013 – present ) Assistant to the president for national security affairs General James L. Jones ( 2009 – 2010 ) Thomas E. Donilon ( 2010 – 2013 ) Susan Rice ( 2013 - present ) Deputy to the president for the national security affairs Thomas E. Donilon ( 2009 – 2010 ) Dennis McDonough ( 2010- 2013 ) Tony Blinken ( 2013- present ) Deputy national security advisor Strategic communications and speechwriting. Ben Rhodes (2009 - Present) Trade representative Ron Kirk ( 2009- 2013 ) Demetrios Marantis (2013) Miriam Sapiro ( 2013) Michael Froman ( 2013 ) There has been few changes in the US foreign policy since president Barrack Obama took office. The foreign policy of Barrack Obama have been determined by several factors that include the foreign policy legacy and the traditions of various democratic parties. Other factors include the developments and the reality of the global strategic environment, also include is the US perception both domestically and internationally and the final factor been the long-term interests of the United States (Burt & Anurre n.d.). The influence of Democratic Party’s foreign policy on the current foreign policy The legacy security and foreign policy of any democratic party can never be monolithic construction. There are several intellectual traditions that can be singled out to a significant influence on the Democratic mainstream. The main traditions that have most important backbone of president Obama’s party’s ideology in the foreign policy agenda are the neoliberal and liberal or the Wilsonian traditions whereas Jeffersonian tradition have a partial contribution (Lieber, 2008). There was a clear signaling of the rupture with Bush’s policy by Barrack Obama in his speech in Cairo. President Obama said that there is no system of government that can or should be imposed by one nation on any other as well that there should be a presumption to which party or whom should lead the country. Hillary Clinton while acting as the state secretary together with her associates are prominent representatives of the presidents line of thoughts in the current administration of the US. There is however a characteristic of Skepticism on the left wing democratic party towards the military and its mandated role the international relations. During the stabilization of Iraq, the voice that was gained in prominence registered only a limited access that was central to the earlier experience in the decade. There is a great association of Barrack Obama and liberal traditions the foreign policy of his government. His concerned on the central role of cooperation with the international nations and stresses on the same where he encourages partnerships strengthening and involvement of alliances in involvement of the US to addressing global challenges and global threats (Barret 2007). He also emphasized that the factors should contribute to American global leadership on a global scale. There was also the confirmation of the self-perception of the US as a light house. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Barrack Obama’s foreign policy was described as the most Wilsonian by Kagan (Sathasivam, 2005). There is however view by other liberal correspondents that President Barrack Obama Is forcing the narrowest liberal foreign policy positions in the decade to an extent in which war arises (Grissmer, 2010). The war in Iraq was described to unilateral and pre-emptive by president Obama due to its violation of the international laws whereas the Afghanistan war was still held. As stated by president Obama, all the Taliban and the al Qaeda groups are persuaded with a broad international support where he clearly noted that they didn’t go there by force but because of necessity. The president also stated that he doesn’t oppose all wars on his speech of the Anti-Iraq war. President Obama said that he supported Bush’s administration pledge to root out those that shed the blood of innocent people. He promised to lift up his arms to prevent such tragedy from happening. He characterized the engagement of America in Iraq not been on passion but was based on reason and also been based on politics but not principle (Graham-Yooll, 2005). The key factors on Obamas chosen approach towards Iran and North Korea in dealing with international terrorism are coalition building and international cooperation. On his approach, Obama is concerned about other factors including healthcare, support to the market economy and education in conflict areas (Grissmer, 2000). As opposed to the geographical approach on war against terror used by the administration of President George W. Bush, which considered Iraq and Afghanistan to be in the frontline, the administration of president Obama puts the Afghanistan to be the global struggle theatre. Afghanistan is placed at the central front in the struggle against terror. The reason behind this strategy is that al Qaeda have their headquarters in Afghanistan and not Iraq (Dadge & Schechter, 2006, p. 34). The country is considered as a place with a permanent form of instability. Obama directed the termination of the presence of military in Iraq together with the reorientation of the focus of America on Afghanistan. Obama’s team empahsised that the change and alternative foreign policy by cold strategic calculations besides democratic philosophy and identity. The conclusion by Obama is that the US must renew on the soft power in order to reestablish the United Nations power in its complexity. Obama use change to denote a break with the past rather than using change for strategic importance (Hale, 2007). The president’s scary foreign-policy strategy. There have been airstrikes against terrorists targets inside Syria officially began by the US military during president Obama’s administration. It presents a more muscular policy and a different Obama taking the fight to the enemy seriously. There is, however, no evidence that Obama has turned the policy page. Obama has for some time used force with half-hearted surge in Afghanistan, similar job done halfway in Libya and some hollow threats against Assad. War has changed many presidents of America, but president Obama came to office with inadequate experience in the foreign policy (Hume, 2003). There was a clear signal of a shift in the signing and the ratification of the new nuclear deal start with Russia in the year 2010. Unlike the administration of Bush where there was a testy relationship with Moscow, Obama showed that he could establish good relationships with kremlin not forgetting the relations with Russia (Woodward, 2002). The complete withdrawal from Iraq was done in December 2011. President Obama also signaled is commitment to end the US press in its operations in the Afghanistan. In June 2011, the president removed the strategy that was set to counter terrorism. The mission of getting the core Al Qaeda leadership was narrowed down and decided to take only on the terrorist activities if they would direct a core threat to the homeland (Lum & Kennedy, 2011). Obama decided to bring down the war and suppress the change that were left behind with enough drone strikes that would force them to keep the heads down. The Liberian civil war intervention by the U.S in March 2011 was meant to be a signature achievement of Obama’s doctrine. It was a clear demonstration of the way the America’s white house would still lead though on a light touch. The blueprint, as laid by the government’s critics was set forth in early 2012 where president Obama cemented his stamp on to new strategic guidance on the defense and foreign policy. There was a complete transformation in 2012 before the elections had rolled around. By the time the elections were rolling up, people were practicing Obama’s tactics later justifying them with Obama’s Rhetoric (Woods, 2012). Indian United-States Relations. (Indo-American relations) During the Obama’s administration, there have been recent developments in relation to how the United State relates to the Indian countries. During the period there have been a rapid growth in the economy of India, development in the Indians development in the bilateral trade, initiation of close links between the American and Indian computer and internet industries. The two have formed a geo political coalition to balance the increasingly rising of the assertive china that would lead to the weakening of the US-Pakistan relations over a number of disputes that have been ongoing. There has been also a reversal of the 2008 American opposition that had been standing for long to Indians nuclear program (Wiegersma & Medley, 2000). America perceives India as the 6th favorite nation. The executive actions by president Obama to defer the deportation of up to five million people living illegally in the United States relies illegally on the legal similar principles used by his preceding presidents in the past. The most important relationship in the world having affirmed by the United states as its bilateral relationship with the United Kingdom. The world largest direct foreign investment partnership is in between United States and the United Kingdom. The trade of Canada with the United States accounts to about 75% of the Canadian foreign investment. Canada is the largest United States trading partner and also ranked as the chief supplier of oil. The two countries have progressively developed together trading with one another (Singh, 2012). There is, however, no big change in the foreign policy between the two nations since the North America free trade agreement (NAFTA). It was formulated in 1994, and there have been no new policies since Obama’s administration took power. Obama’s foreign policy has, however, maintained the good relations with Canada, ensuring that there is continuity of trade among the two nations (Wiegersma & Medley, 2000). The American policy operates everywhere in the existing established friendships and understanding (Ciuriak, 2009, p. 26). The United States has never been bound by any established positions or traditions set to an unprecedented degree, whether, by vested interests or by fixed agreements. America have been a new comer to the Sub-Sahara Africa though it has for a long time associated with some North African parts. There have been a monumental growth of the American interest in the African political, emotional and its intellectual in the past few years. There are however identifiable and concrete sparse American interests. There is a slight actual American state in America. There are five pillars that have been set to act as the foundation of the US policy towards the foreign policy in Africa. The pillars are as follows: a) To provide support for the democracy and strengthen the democratic institutions in the African continent including the conduction of free fair and transparent elections that would prevent the political violence among the citizens. b) It is also clearly set to promote economic growth and development in Africa. c) The policy is set to prevent conflicts, and at long last provide mitigation. d) The policy also aids at supporting presidential initiatives that include the global health initiative, feed for the future climate change initiative globally. e) Supports in working with the African Nations on the transnational issues including drug smuggling, illicit arms, trafficking in persons and money laundering. The above mentioned foreign policies of the US were implemented before the Obamas administration and serve to guide through the relationships of the US and the countries of the African continent. Most of them are a continuation of the past way of interaction of the US and the international world. The relationship between US and Africa is tight in some parts of African continent while, in others, new relationships have recently been set. The US provides political guidance in Africa and a number of resolutions through its representatives including the Ambassadors. However, the administration of president Barrack Obama has stronger ties with some parts of Africa whereas it has loose ties with other parts of the continent. The trend would lead to discrimination of some African countries and the favor of others. There were high expectations that president barrack Obama would prioritize the African continent where he had included among other things reducing poverty in the region, dealing with genocides in a number of countries most probably in Darfur. There was also an indication that Obama’s administration would stop the war in Congo and end hypocrisy in Zimbabwe. However, the president visited Egypt where he addressed the Muslim community and later visited Ghana where he addressed the parliament of Ghana (Lieber, 2008). The first actions of the administration of Obama was to sign a memorandum of understanding with Kenya that gave permission for the pirates caught at the Kenyan coast to be tried in the Kenya. He ordered his military to rescue the Philippines that were held hostage for five days. Australia and the US foreign policy. The interests of the Australia continent serves to provide a strong relationship between America and the United States. It brings great benefit to the citizens in Australia. There is a high affinity between the people of these two countries. The alliance of Australia and the united states have allied over 60 years and still remains to be vital in providing shared global and regional security. Australia through the alliance with the US is able to benefit with the technology and joint training that ensures that there is maintenance of defense in Australia (Ryan, 2007). It is also able to benefit from intelligence that enhances the encounter of terrorism. The alliance, however, highly contributes to the stability and prosperity of the Asia pacific. Obama’s soaring rhetoric and desire for crucial change is well defined and seen on one hand, while, on the other, there is his instinct for governing pragmatically. Obama’s foreign policy history has thus been progressive at the possible points and areas but at the same time pragmatism when the situations allows to be so. Following both the domestic and global situations that president barrack Obama has face, pragmatism has dominated his administration’s foreign policy performance. Conclusion During the first term of president barrack Obama, the surge for the US forces that dominated the headlines. In accordance to the present planning assumptions, there a considerable number of US and allied troops that might remain to help in training the Afghan forces (Wildman et al., 2010). They would be therefore be mandated to carry out certain specific roles. Analysts have seen Pakistan as a failing state that may actually collapse to a point of remaining as a powerful source of instability in the region (Long, 2000). There have been efforts by the US government to strengthen its ties with India in which a bilateral relationship that have ever been wished for in Washington may be achieved. There have been a warm relationship between president Obama and Israel prime minister, where managing the relationship will a crucial factor that will put the prime minister in a position to deal with any Israeli action. There is also the likelihood of president Obama to eschew grand policies with the Russian nation that would favor a more pragmatic approach. It would lead to the seeking of an agreement where possible. A lot has not been done to change the US foreign policy in the Obama’s administration. Nevertheless, few changes have been demonstrated where possible. Otherwise, in most cases, the policies are in accordance to those that were used by the predecessors of President Barack Obama. Many of the policies in the US policy relates to benefit both the international world and the United States in particular (Pillar, 2001). The factors of benefit would provide peace to foreign nations, reduction of poverty, enhancing international trade and interaction through other factors including religion. Other factors include providing good education to developing countries Bibliography Altan, M., 2006. Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers in Turkey a Challenge for the 21st Century. Dil Dergisi. Barrett, R., 2007. The greater Middle East and the Cold War. London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Burt, S. and Añorve, D., n.d. Global perspectives on US foreign policy. Ciuriak, D., 2007. Trade policy research 2006. [Ottawa]: Dept. of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Cox, M. and Stokes, D., 2008. US foreign policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dadge, D. and Schechter, D., 2006. The war in Iraq and why the media failed us. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers. Dobson, A. and Marsh, S., 2002. US foreign policy since 1945. London: Routledge. Flynn, N., 2004. Instant messaging rules. New York: American Management Association. Friedman, T. and Mandelbaum, M., 2011. That used to be us. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Graham-Yooll, R., 2005. A foreign policy. Palm Beach, Fla.: Medallion Press. Grissmer, D., 2000. Improving student achievement. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand. Hale, W., 2007. Turkey, the US and Iraq. London: Saqi. Hume, L., 2003. Strangers settled here amongst us. London: Routledge. Indyk, M., Lieberthal, K. and OHanlon, M., 2012. Bending history. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Kaplan, R., 2012. The revenge of geography. New York: Random House. Laïdi, Z., 2012. Limited achievements. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. Lieber, R., 2008. Foreign policy. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. Long, S., 2000. Caring for the elderly in Japan and the US. London: Routledge. Lum, C. & Kennedy, L., 2011. Evidence-Based Counterterrorism Policy. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Pauly, R., 2010. The Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy. Farnham, England: Ashgate. Pillar, P., 2001. Terrorism and U.S. foreign policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Ryan, D., 2007. Frustrated empire. London: Ann Arbor, MI. Sathasivam, K., 2005. Uneasy neighbors. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Serena, C., 2011. A revolution in military adaptation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Singh, R., 2012. Barack Obamas post-American foreign policy. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Wiegersma, N. and Medley, J., 2000. US economic development policies towards the Pacific Rim. New York: St. Martins Press. Wildman, D. and Bennis, P., 2010. Ending the US war in Afghanistan. Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch Press. Winter, J., 2005. The librarian of Basra. Orlando, Fla.: Harcourt, Inc. Woods, D., 2012. Family policy in transformation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Wodward, B., 2002. Bush at War. New York: Simon and Schuster. Read More