Analysis of the Foreign Policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 - Term Paper Example

Analysis of the foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 Introduction The foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 has been perceived as a fundamental shift from the previous USA foreign policy approach, most especially in relation to the application of the military force. Historically, the USA foreign policy has been directed by the doctrines of deterrence and containment, which provided for the USA intervention in international affairs only as a way of deterring or containing events that are of a possible threat to the USA economic, political, social, and security interests. First, the doctrine of deterrence was applied as the major approach to the USA foreign policy in the period immediately after the World War II (Microsoft Corporation, 2004:n.p.). The doctrine of deterrence applied the continued investment of the USA in nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction, as a strategy for deterring the USSR attack, considering that the two nations had emerged as the major world powers after the World War II. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991 that left the USA as the only superpower, the foreign policy doctrine of containment was adapted by the USA, which combined diplomacy and conventional military strength to protect the USA interests in the international spheres (CRF, 2015:n.p.). Nevertheless, all these had to change with the entry of President George H. W. Bush into office in the year 2000, which marked the rise of a new USA foreign policy approach that characterized the Bush Administration 2000-2008, popularly known as the ‘Bush Doctrine’ (CRF, 2015:n.p.). Thus, this discussion seeks to analyze this shift in the USA foreign policy as characterized by the rise of the Bush Doctrine, based on two international relation theories, namely neo liberalism and neo realism, with a view to interpreting which theory aligns with the foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008, as related to the issue of national security. Discussion According to the neo realism theory of international relations, states interact on the international front on the basis of anarchy, where the major intention of each state is to maximize its power relative to the other states (Waltz, 1986: 333). Further, this theory holds that states act on the international front in accordance with the logic of self-help, which means that states are purely focused on meeting their own interests while interacting with others on the international front, and they will not subordinate their interest to the interests of the other states (Baldwin, D. (1993:27). However, this theory has been countered by the neo liberalism theory of international relations, which provides that states interact on the international front on the basis of cooperation to benefit each state, as opposed to each state seeking to benefit relatively to the other states (Keohane, 1986: 24). Further, the neo liberalism theory offers that; while the states are the most important actors on the international front, they are not the only actors, owing to the fact that there are other international actors such as multinational organizations which interact on the basis of benefiting each state in which they operate (Weber, 2014:41). Nevertheless, even with the differences in the approach to international relations between the two theories, one major point of congruence between the theories is that they recognize the relevance of pursuit for power by the states, as the basis of securing their interests. The neo realism theory provides that in international relations, states are at a minimum seeking to ensure their survival, and for that reason they develop offensive military capabilities as the basis of foreign interventionism, as well as the basis of increasing their relative power over the other states (Russet, 2010:77). On the other hand, the neo liberalism theory offers that power can be achieved through collective security and cooperation, and thus military power buildup for states is important, as a basis of alliances power, against the military and political relations of the rival international bloc (Baldwin, 1993: 3). Thus, the interpretation of the foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 under the lens of these two theories underlines the relevance of military power as an essential tool for international relations. Both neo liberalism and neo realism recognizes that military power is important in international relations, since it defines the balance of power between the states (Dannreuther, 2013:22). Thus, the fact that the foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 was characterized by military power application towards settling the scores between the USA and other international actors, is an indication that the provision of the two theories, in relation to the importance of military power, is realistic. However, the major difference between the interpretations of the application of the military power between the theories draws from the fact that the neo realism theory provides for the unitary application of military power by a state against others, while the neo liberalism provides for a cooperative application of military power by an alliance of states against their rivals (Baldwin, 1993:7). The historical approach of the USA to foreign policy after the World War II was through the containment doctrine, which offered for the use of both diplomacy and military power to protect the interests of the USA (Microsoft Corporation, 2004:n.p.). Considering the fact that diplomacy is a concept that seeks the cooperation of nations towards addressing a common problem for the benefit of all the nations, the historical foreign policy approach for the USA was congruent with the neo liberalism theory of international relations, which provides for the cooperation of nations towards addressing an issue of common interest (Claude, 1981:36). Nevertheless, the coming of President George H. W. Bush into office in the year 2000 resulted in a drastic shift in the foreign policy approach of the USA, where the ‘Bush Doctrine’, as applied by the Bush Administration 2000-2008 centered on the application of military power to safeguard the interests of the USA, with diplomacy playing little or no intervention role (CRF, 2015:n.p.). This drastic change in the USA foreign policy become rife in September 2002, when the The National Security Strategy of the United States was published by the Bush Administration, redefining the foreign security policy of the USA. One of the three pillars of the ‘Bush Doctrine’, as provided for under the The National Security Strategy of the United States, was the doctrine of unrivaled military supremacy (Bush, 2002). The doctrine of unrivaled military supremacy provided that the United States would focus on strengthening and investing in its military power, to enhance its military supremacy, and make it the best in the world. In support of this doctrine, President George H. W. Bush observed that the threat of terrorism has become very real for the USA, and thus it was time that the USA took a decisive action against both the terrorist cells and the rogue nations that supported the terrorism activities (Microsoft Corporation, 2004:n.p.). Thus, the shift the foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 was particularly focused on enhancing military power of the USA, as the basis of international relations of the USA with the other international actors. This practice is in line with the provisions of the neo realism theory of international relations, which provides that to secure their interests, states develops their offensive military capabilities as the basis of interventionism in foreign relations, as well as making military capability the basis of attaining relative power over the other state actors (Waltz, 1986: 333). Thus, when interpreted from the perspective of the military supremacy doctrine of the Bush Administration 2000-2008, it can clearly be seen that the foreign policy process of this administration was particularly congruent to the neo realism theory of international relations, and thus the foreign policy of this regime can be defined as neo-realistic. The other major security policy of the foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008, was the policy of preemptive or preventive war (Microsoft Corporation, 2004:n.p.). The policy of the preemptive or preventive war was adapted by the Bush Administration in September 2002, when this concept was incorporated as part of the The National Security Strategy of the United States (Bush, 2002). Thus, according to this policy, the USA was to adapt the practice of intervening in international situations that are potentially a threat to the security of the nation, through pre-emptying or preventing such situations from proliferation into real attacks on the USA. Thus, for example, the Afghanistan War is one of the wars that the Bush Administration engaged the USA military power in, as a process of pre-emptying and preventing the threat of the Taliban terrorist activities from finally affecting the USA (Karoui, 2012:4). In defense of the preventive and preemptive policy of military engagement in foreign relations, President George H. W. Bush stated that the deterrence strategy against the threat of terrorism was proving to be ineffective. This way, the President observed that the historical deterrence policy that had been applied by the USA previously could no longer be relied upon towards hindering a rogue nation or a terrorist organization from perpetrating their terrorist attacks against the USA (Bush, 2002:n.p.). President George H. W. Bush also argued that the historical deterrence security policy could not prevent rogue nations from using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against the masses in whichever location they deemed appropriate for delivering their political statement (Microsoft Corporation, 2004:n.p.) Based on these arguments, the president presented the preemptive and preventive security policy as the new policy to be adapted and applied by his administration towards countering the threat of international terrorism. Thus, when this foreign policy shift process is evaluated based on both the neo liberalism and neo realism theories of international relations, it can easily be seen that the preemptive and preventive policy adhered to the provisions of the neo realism theory. This s because, the neo realism theory provides that states exists in an anarchy world of mistrust, and as such, states must guard against loss of power that could enable the other states to threaten their survival (Waltz, 1979:32). This is exactly the reason for which the preemptive and preventive security policy was adopted by the Bush Administration 2000-2008. It was meant to safeguard the USA against the threat of terrorism, which would give the rogue nations supporting terrorism the power to threaten the survival of the USA interests in the international front. The last pillar of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 security strategy was the doctrine of acting unilaterally where multilateral cooperation could not be achieved (CRF, 2015:n.p.). This doctrine which was enshrined n the The National Security Strategy of the United States on September 2002, provided that the USA would be ready and willing to act unilaterally to defend its interests, on the event that achieving multilateral cooperation for such action was not possible (Bush, 2002:n.p.). It is under the doctrine of ‘acting unilaterally’, that the USA was led into the war of Iraq by the Bush Administration, against the wish of most of the USA citizens, as well as against the wish of the international community (CRF, 2015:n.p.). The entry of the USA military into Iraq for the purposes of dislodging the regime of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was purely based on the invocation of the ‘unilaterally acting’ doctrine that was established by the Bush Administration. This is due to the fact that other nations from whom the USA had sought partnership such as the UK and other members of the UN Security Council refused to offer support for the war of Iraq. The war of Iraq has remained the single-most blunder that the foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 is still blamed for to present day, since it caused the USA to enter into war that did not produce evidence of dangerous weapons alleged to be developed by Iraq (Karoui, 2012:24). Thus, when this action is interpreted from the lens of both the neo liberalism and neo realism theories of international relations, it can be seen that the action aligns with the neo realism theory. This is because the neo realism theory provides that in international relations, states are purely guided by the need to ensure their own survival and sustain their power against the other state actors (Rodhan, 2007:47). Conclusion The foreign policy of the Bush Administration 2000-2008 was a major shift from the historical approach of the USA to foreign policy. The Bush Administration introduced the ‘Bush doctrine’, which replaced the historical USA security policy of deterrence with other policies that sought to strengthen the military supremacy f the USA, prevent or preempt threats to the nation, and go into international action against another state unilaterally, if the circumstances demanded so. All these shifts as introduced by the Bush Administration are attributable to the neo-realism theory, which provides that nations use military power to safeguard their survival and preserve their international power of influence against the others. References Baldwin, D. (1993). NeoRealism and NeoLiberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press. Bush, George W. (September 2002). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The White House. Retrieved from http://georgewbush whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html Claude, I. (1981) Power and International Relations, London: Random House Publishers. Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF) (2015). The Bush Doctrine. Retrieved from http://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/bush-doctrine.html Dannreuther, R. (2013) International Security: The Contemporary Agenda, (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press Karoui, H. (July 2012). The Bush II years in the Middle East (2000-2008): Morals and interests. Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. 1-49. Keohane, R. (1986) NeoRealism And Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press. Microsoft Corporation. (2004). The Bush Doctrine and the U.S. Military. Retrieved from http://www.peace.ca/bushdoctrine.htm Rodhan, N. (2007) Symbiotic Realism: A Theory of International Relations in an Instant and an Interdependent World, Germany: Lit Verlag Publishers. Russet, B. (2010) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (2nd ed.),Oxford University Press. Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics, United States: McGraw-Hill Press. Weber, C. (2014) International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (4th ed.) London: Routledge Press. Read More