Will President Barack Obama Change the Direction of US Foreign Policy - Essay Example

Question: To What Extent Will President Barack Obama Be Able To Change The Direction Of US Foreign Policy? Table of Contents 0. Introduction 3 1.Theoretical Dimension of Analysis 3 1.2. Main Argument 5 2.0. Continuity and Change in US Foreign Policy 5 2.1. Post-Cold War 7 2.3. Bush Senior Foreign Policy 8 2.4. Bush Junior Foreign Policy 9 2.5. Obama and US Foreign Policy Challenges 10 3.1. Prominent Features 13 3.1.1. Out of Iraq 13 3.1.2. Priority of Pakistan and Afghanistan 14 3.1.3. Kyoto Protocol 15 3.1.4. The Environment 16 4.0. Conclusion 17 References 19 1.0. Introduction Since the rise of America in the international role, its foreign policies have fuelled many controversies around the world. Considering it to be a tool to gain global power, political leaders of the US, had not also restrained from applying strategies that would offer competitive advantages to the country1. From Franklin Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush, presidential concerns and strategies have never let the importance of the US foreign policies to fade away as a criterion to function with international control. It has been the virtues as well as the vices of the adopted foreign policy by the various US Presidents that America today shares cordial relationship with many nations, but excluding a few contributing to global political imbalances2. Many criticisms have surmised the efficiency of these policies to assure the nation with a global leadership position without any ill effects to its moral image. However, it is worth mentioning that even those foreign policy adopted by the 44th President of the US, sounded quite promising in the polls, which had its own loopholes3. 1.1. Theoretical Dimension of Analysis In the simplest words, foreign policy can be defined as the measures taken by any nation to gain benefits from international peace relations, suffice its developmental needs and assisting in the advancement of other nations by sharing resources as per the need. The underlying assumption to this particular theory asserts that nations with greater availability of developmental resources should assist nations having limitations, empowering them to advance and suffice their needs for existence. It also acts as a prospect for greater democracy in the wider scale of the international platform4. On the flipside, inflicted with self-sufficing objectives of many nations, the theory is also assumed to treat greater availability of resources as equivalent to greater political power. This in turn is supposed to reward few nations with more control on international politics as compared to nations witnessing limitations of insufficient resources. However, considering the basic tenet of macro-economy advocating continuous flow of resources, it becomes rational that the channelization of global power keeps on shifting it base and thus, to preserve their international role, nations need to emphasise changing their foreign policies5. Many causes lead to changes in the foreign policies adopted by any nation. At the base, the changes in foreign policies mainly occur due to the influence of ‘exigencies and opportunities’ existing within the global platform. Another major driver of foreign policy changes can be identified in the form of state preferences, wherein the resource allocation and availability to suffice international growth needs play a major role. Domestic political situations also play a fundamental role in determining resource inflow and outflow from the country, which again is responsible for its international position. While these factors determine the internal constraints of opportunities to gain international power through foreign policy changes, there are many external factors that decide the shifts to be expected in this particular domain6. The best example to such shifts and these theoretical aspects can be identified in the economic history of the US. 1.2. Main Argument The main argument is that the consensus on the perception of national interest determines the US foreign policy. The US is still contended to be an imperialist power determined towards pursuing national interests where the international co-operation is commandeered from the need to repress and structure the conflict and competition existing in the international system. This study focuses on three US presidents, namely George Herbert Walker Bush Senior also known as Bush senior (1989–1993), George Walker Bush /Bush junior (2001-2009) and the incumbent president Barack Obama and their foreign policy. The main argument of this project is arranged around two major sections. The first section deals with continuity and change in US foreign policy during the post-cold war era as well as in the regimes of Bush senior, Bush junior and incumbent president Barack Obama. The second section deals with analysing the prominent features of Obama foreign policy. Correspondingly, this section emphasizes a few major factors pertaining to the current US foreign policy that includes issues related to out of Iraq, priority of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Kyoto protocol and the environment change. 2.0. Continuity and Change in US Foreign Policy Over the past four decades after the end of the World War II, the US foreign policy primarily concentrated on two major goals which included countering the rapid spread of communism, and advocating democracy and the system of free market across the globe. It is vital to mention that these goals for the US policy makers were valued since communism was largely believed to be detrimental to the US interest in invigorating the liberal world political economy. Nevertheless, in the third world countries, this policy of the US was viewed contradictory. Although the US revealed its robust interest in global economic and political development, but it firmly supported political leaders and parties holding anti-communist views. As a result, the US was viewed by the leaders in the many countries of the world as authoritian, which reduced its ability to promote modernization internationally. In the regions like the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa, the US was viewed as visionless, vicious, corrupt and detested regime. The Shah of Iran, the Somoza dynasty of Nicaragua, Mobutu Sese Seko of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Fulgencio Batista of Cuba and Ferdinand Marcus of Philippines were the few prominent leaders who exhibited detrimental views towards the US7. The beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, the US hegemony continues to influence the world. The economic crisis witnessed during 2008-09, which actually originated from the US before spreading to the rest of the world, reasserted the influence of America across the globe. It is apparent from the prevailing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan that the US foreign policy has not been able to deliver effective outcomes, yet the US remains unsurpassed globally in terms of dominance and power. Undoubtedly, the foreign policy of the US unlike any other country fostered global interest and a worldwide network of coalitions8. Correspondingly, these evidences suggest a greater degree of continuity than change in the US foreign policy. 2.1. Post-Cold War The post cold world war era manifested intervention of the US political with the use of armed forces, for instance the Gulf War II, which led a significant change in the US foreign policy. The era witnessed the downfall of the Soviet Union and the beginning of a unipolar international system followed by the rise of a numerous ‘ethnic and radical politico-religious oriented non-state actors’, which were considered seriously in the US foreign policy. This elucidates why the elements in the US foreign policy was no longer monopolized by state actors9. The post-cold war era also noticed the shift in the old American consensus towards the world. The traditional approach that was supported in the US foreign policy during the cold war was no more valid. The US after the cold war emerged to be equally divided in terms of the political dimensions, namely between Democrats and Republic. Nevertheless, the values dividing the two parties continue to grow. The Republican Party was able in shifting the political agenda which included embracing ‘cultural politics’, ‘political evangelicalism’ and ‘anti-state populism’ responding to the traditional American approach that stressed on the post-world war liberal consensus. Significant changes in the views and recommended guidelines of the US foreign policy were seen during the post-cold-war era. A shift in the foreign policy also espoused changes in the views of the prominent US leaders held in terms of the international system. Despite the radical changes in the US foreign policy, aspects of democracy and human rights still occupied a major place in the US policy. The changes and persistence increased the diversity of the US foreign policy. Notwithstanding, the foreign policy attitudes during the post cold world era reflected both continuation and change, which resulted in greater complexity in the attitude and optimism in relation to the future of the US policy10. 2.3. Bush Senior Foreign Policy With the arrival of George W. H. Bush’s administration (1989-1993), the sweeping US rhetoric relating to US responsibility “to make kinder the face of the Nation and gentler the face of the world was espoused”. The Republican president, Bush Senior stated in his inaugural speech that “America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle”. The speech of the President reflected that the US foreign policy values realist agenda for realizing its interests based on moral principle. The differences in the US foreign policy espoused by Bush senior incorporated a “new engagement ….a new activism that gets job done”. National Security Directive 26 (NSD, 2 October 1989) as well as NSD45 (20 August 1990) of Bush senior merely reflected the continual of the American conventional security interest. The use of direct force as well as the importance of the Middle East countries engaged in strengthening their influence through developing nuclear weapons and supportive of terrorism were central to his policy11. At the end of cold war, the communism in Europe began to disappear but there was a greater need that this process is preceded efficiently and smoothly. The administration union between collaboration and confrontation during the regime of Bush senior was a vital and underappreciated success of the US foreign policy. Similar to America, the Soviet Union and the European nations were engaged in the reconstruction in the post-cold war era, but interference from Saddam Hussein had significant influence on the US foreign policy. The invasion of Saddam Hussein to Kuwait forced the US under the administration of Bush senior to organize wide alliances against Iraq. Bush senior sent a sizeable extraordinary force to the Middle East, which was viewed as one of the significant transformations in the US foreign policy. Significant changes were also seen in the US foreign policy accompanied by widespread challenges ahead for Bush senior. Nevertheless, the Bush administration also espoused old consensus to avoid violence and destruction and continue to engage in international affairs through the democratic process12. 2.4. Bush Junior Foreign Policy Under the administration of George W Bush, also known as Bush junior, the US foreign policy before 9/11 was viewed as a great setback to the neoconservative group of the Republican Party who were expecting for a dramatic shift and transformation in the American grand strategy. The US foreign policy during the regime of Bush Junior was grounded on pragmatic approach. The disappointment was felt in certain specific areas including defence spending, relation to China and Russia. Especially, the terrorist attack on ‘the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September 2001’ moulded the US foreign policy under the administration of Bush junior. During the Bush administration, the US foreign policy was influenced by two major factors including terrorism and nuclear weapons. After the incident of 9/11, intense changed was witnessed in the attitudes of the US civilian towards removing Hussein from Iraq. It was believed that countries like North Korea, Iraq and Iran were engaged in acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which would result in posing a serious threat on the national security of the US13. All these concerns fuelled the changes in the US foreign policy during the Bush administration. Bush’s grand foreign-policy structure was intended at maintaining the US supremacy by utilizing military power, espousing the principle of unilateralism and pre-emption. The Bush administration pursued to expand the US domination by engaging in war with Iraq in 2003. However, the decision of Bush junior to attack Iraq and defeat the Hussein regime was greatly criticized by conventional realists. Hussein was a great threat to the US but it looked-for a strong Iraq that could check Iran’s hegemony in the region. However, this interest of the US was ruined when Iran appeared to be the greatest beneficiary as the consequence of the US war against Iraq. Iran after the fall of Iraq emerged as a hegemon in the Middle East region, threatening the regional peace and order and the uncontrolled command for sustaining its WMD programs14. Notably, Bush Doctrine illustrates continuation in the US grand strategy, but the transformation in the strategies implemented was observed to achieve foreign policy goals15. 2.5. Obama and US Foreign Policy Challenges The onset of Barack Obama at the White House was welcomed with international relief and since then, efforts towards rebalancing of US foreign policy were apparent. Nevertheless, the challenges persist, as is apparent in the disappointments of the US foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the sluggishness of the Palestinian–Israeli peace procedure. In the Middle East, Obama’s efforts to attract the Muslim world are evident from his speech that stressed on “a new beginning”. More recently, it has been seen the Obama administration is struggling to restructure the earlier condemned idea of “humanitarian intervention” in collapsing the Gaddafi rule in Libya in order to monitor the world-shattering tide resulted by the Arab disturbances in the region. The significance of Wilsonianism to President Obama’s foreign policy program is not that distinguish him from his predecessors rather it exhibits the clear lines of continuity with them16. Three major challenges can be identified to influence the US foreign policy, which requires priority attention. These three challenges can be related to ensuring that China’s unprecedented growth does not have any adverse impact on the world peace, combating radical Islamism and promoting globalisation through international cooperation. Economic success has the potential to intensify the political effect on world affairs. China is currently the world’s second largest economy and, if present trends continue, it will be emerged as the largest by 2030. Thus, the issue that dominates the existing US foreign policy rationale is how to deal with the steady rise of China. The other two main challenges to US foreign policy include radical Islamism and adapting the international social order to address the challenges of globalisation and democratisation17. At the same time, distribution of power involves an assortment of events comprising mega-terrorism, with the use of WMD. Thus, the increase in the failure of the states to protect the interest of criminal and regionals volatility and the surge in the transitional organised crime are viewed as few major challenges to the US foreign policy18. 3.0. Obama Foreign Policy The foreign policy is a major agenda propagated by the Democratic Party, but it is far from being a uniform construction. Several rational traditions and their representatives are ascertained to have a noteworthy influence on the democratic beliefs. The cornerstone of President Obama’s party philosophy in the US foreign policy program is seen to influence by liberal and neoliberal or Wilsonian ideologies. Essentially, President Obama’s party inherits principles espoused by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. President Obama’s party has stressed international social order and multilateralism, alongside democratic institutions and their worldwide growth, but not by means of “hard power” and “regime change”, which were fundamental to the Bush junior doctrine largely during the first Bush administration. The left group of the Democratic Party has revealed its scepticism towards the armed forces and its role in promoting international relations. These views and ideologies hold by the Democratic Party can be seen in contrast to the ideologies demonstrated by preceding presidents Bush junior, especially after the 9/11 incident, when the ideology of ‘institutional liberism’ has limited influence on the US. President Obama has clearly linked himself with a liberal approach in his foreign policy. Evidently, President Obama is firmly determined towards espousing contracted liberal foreign policy, which was absent in the last decades by emphasizing earliest finishing of (Iraq) war, as well as terminating the way-of-thinking culminating in war19. Obama has expressed that the Iraq war unilateral and pre-emptive that included breach of fundamental principles of international law. In contrast to the approach adopted during the administration of Bush junior where more focus was placed on Iraq, President Obama’s administration concentrates on Afghanistan as a central front of the global struggle. The new strategy of Obama also entails the reorientation the US foreign policy of pursuing the regional balance of power towards promoting of democratic development particularly in the Middle East20. 3.1. Prominent Features 3.1.1. Out of Iraq The arrival of Obama to the White House was closely linked with the spontaneously addressing the two major issue of the US foreign policy including stabilization operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama assumed liberal view towards the war in Iraq. He espoused pragmatic shift with respect to the issue of Iraq war. During the presidential campaign organised at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, he announced to withdraw one or two brigades involved in combat every month. Obama firmly stressed on compromise plan and according to this plan, he announced that soldiers directly involved in the Iraq war would be withdrawn from Iraq before August 2010. While he also announced that remaining 35000 to 50000 soldiers will continue to render their services until December 2011for maintaining peace in the country and will be engaged in training Iraqi security component and protecting civilians along with battling with terrorist groups in the country21. Obama firmly overruled the interpretation of Bush Junior who advocated increasing military troop in Iraq. Essentially, Obama claimed that the success of the operation in Iraq would be achieved only if democracy is promoted and regional integrity of the country is sustained while religious attacks and terrorist attacks are impeded22. 3.1.2. Priority of Pakistan and Afghanistan Obama during his presidential campaign held a rigid position against the Bush administration and criticized the political responsibility for the development of the situation in Afghanistan for his relative absolution. The criticism made by Obama clearly delineates his concern towards sluggish development process in Afghanistan and failure of Bush administration to promote stability in the country. Correspondingly, the major objective of Obama is to change the prevailing situation in Afghanistan and is committed to defeat the Taliban posing serious obstacle in the attempt of the US to promote peace in the country. Nevertheless, Obama’s new strategy towards the development of Afghanistan is seen to rely less on the strategy adopted during the Bush administration. Accordingly, the new strategy of Obama rejects any unconditional negotiation with Pakistan in the course of ensuring security of Afghanistan. Although the new strategy considers the role of Pakistan to be crucial in promoting peace and security in Afghanistan but rejects the US-Pak friendliness as a solution to the issue. Thus, the new strategy of Obama links the strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan together, which is now referred as Af-Pak strategy. The new strategy of Obama considers that improvement in the prevailing situation in Afghanistan is closely linked with the improvement in the situation in Pakistan23. 3.1.3. Kyoto Protocol After the US disastrous intervention in Iraq followed by the rejection of Kyoto protocol under the Bush administration, one of the major challenges before Obama was to restore the US reputation across the world. Kyoto Protocol is recognised as the most important international strategy that deals with the issue of climate change. Climate change has been the most critical and complex issue influencing the US foreign policy under the Obama administration particularly due to convergence of national and international politics. Unlike the Bush administration, where actions were taken to curtail the role of the US towards climate change, the Obama administration is committed towards minimizing the impact of climate change. Responding to Bali Road Map, which sets out a framework related to the negotiation of post-Kyoto agreement to the binding parties including the US, as one of the major parties to the agreement agreed to introduce a “comprehensive process” for achieving a “shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions”. The US under the administration of Obama, agreed to negotiate “measurable, reportable and verifiable” commitments for further locking caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Obama has also revealed his interest towards Kyoto II, which is subjected to seek congressional approval24. 3.1.4. The Environment The increasing impact of environmental problem such as climate change is a major issue addressed in the US foreign policy under the leadership of Barack Obama. The Obama administration has revealed its firm commitment to address this global challenge and has been working jointly with several partners across the world. The US under the administration of Obama has brought significant shift in its climate change policy through initiating robust changes nationally. The new policy is being set under the administration of Obama to reduce the greenhouse gas emission. In addition, ‘the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ was enacted and enforced in 2009 under the leadership of Obama which includes proposal for investing more than $80 billion towards promoting clean energy. Obama has also stressed on strengthening US-China relations to combat with the challenges imposed by global climate change. At the same time, during 2009, a comprehensive bill, ‘the American Clean Energy and Security Act’ on reducing the greenhouse gas emission was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The US under the administration of Obama is pursuing multiple strategies to seek the support of international community to address the challenges of climate change as well as encouraging the developing countries of the world to take actions for dealing with the challenges25. 4.0. Conclusion The discussion revealed that the role of America in the current dynamic world environment is extremely prominent. Historically, the US foreign policy has accorded significant importance. Over the years, the US foreign policy has been subjected to major alteration with the changes in the US regime of presidents. Numerous factors were responsible for the transition in the US foreign policy. Nevertheless, it has been contended that the consensus on the perception of national interest determines the US foreign policy. Accordingly, the US being an imperialist power pursue national interest through international cooperation, which it strive from the need to repress and structure the conflict and competition existing in the international system. The US foreign policy was identified to influence with the changing era. In this regard, the post-cold war era marked the growing supremacy of US, which was clearly apparent in its foreign policy. The downfall of Soviet Union resulted in the emergence of unipolar international system, which witnessed significant shift in the traditional consensus of America. Although the traditional consensus of promoting democracy and humanity continue to be a major part of the US foreign policy but at the same time, the era manifested the US desire to maintain supremacy over the world economy. These changes in the US foreign policy have culminated in increasing diversity and complexity in its policy. With the arrival of George W. H. Bush’s administration, the US foreign policy shifted towards realising goals based on moral principles. It was the era that witnessed change in the approach of the US towards the Middle East. Similarly, under the administration of Bush junior, significant priority was placed on establishing US hegemony. The administration under Bush junior altered significantly after the event of 9/11. Bush junior strived to influence the world through military power, which was followed by the war on Iraq in 2003. Unlike the Bush administration, the US foreign policy under the leadership of Obama further witnessed radical changes. Obama espoused liberal ideologies as opposed to Bush and revealed his firm commitment towards restoring the reputation of USA and improving the situation in Afghanistan using democratic process. It can be contended that although, the objective of the US foreign policy in the different regime was similar which included sustaining its influential image around the world but the means that were applied in the different regimes were quite different. At the same time, the policy espoused by Obama can be seen to replicate the principles adopted by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but the US policy under the administration of Obama can be hardly related to the policy framed under the administration of Bush Junior. References Anievas, A., Fabry A., and Knox, R., ‘Back to "Normality"?’ US Foreign Policy under Obama http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=846 2012 (accessed 3 November 2014). Afoaku, O. G., ‘U.S. Foreign Policy and Authoritarian Regimes: Change and Continuity in International Clientelism’, Journal of Third World Studies, vol. XVII, no. 2, 2000, pp. 13-40. Charountaki, M., ‘US Foreign Policy in Theory and Practice: from Soviet era Containment to the era of the Arab Uprising(s)’, Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, vol. 2, no. 2, 2014, pp. 123-145. Carroll, R., Leeds, B. A., and Mattes, M., ‘Leadership Turnover And Foreign Policy Change: Societal Interests, Domestic Institutions, And Voting In The United Nations’, The International Politics of Autocracies, 2012, pp. 1-39. Fearon, J. D., ‘Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, And Theories Of International Relations’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 1998, Vol. 1, pp. 289-313. Glenny, M., McMafia: A journey through the global criminal underworld, London, Vintage, 2004. Haass, R. N., and Indyk, M., ‘A New U.S. Strategy for the Middle East’, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63718/richard-n-haass-and-martin-indyk/beyond-iraq (accessed 3 November 2014). Hynek, N., ‘Continuity and Change in the U.S. Foreign and Security Policy with the Accession of President Obama’, Institute of International Relations, 2009, pp. 1-3. Hunter, D., ‘International Climate Negotiations: Opportunities and Challenges for the Obama Administration’, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, vol. 19, 2009, pp. 247-274. Jeffrey, F. J., ‘Obama’s Foreign Policy: How to Rescue It’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 2, 2010, pp. 71-73. Kim, J., and Hundt, D., ‘US Policy toward Rogue States: Comparing the Bush Administration’s Policy toward Iraq and North Korea’, Asian Perspective, vol. 35, 2011, pp. 239–257. Keridis, D., ‘US Foreign Policy: Continuity and Change in an Increasingly Complex World’, Konstantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy, 2012. Mearsheimer, J. J., ‘The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 381–396. Obama, B., ‘Renewing American Leadership’, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62636/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership 2007 (accessed 3 November 2014). Pan, J., ‘Addressing Climate Change through Sustainable Development’, Journal USA, vol. 14, no. 9, 2009, pp. 1-37. Quarantello, K., ‘The Bush Doctrine and Presidential Rhetoric: Change and Continuity in US Foreign Policy’, Honors Thesis Collection, 2013, pp. 1-101. Róbert, O., ‘American Foreign and Security Policy under Barack Obama: change and continuity’, http://cenaa.org/analysis/american-foreign-and-security-policy-under-barack-obama-change-and-continuity/ 2014 (accessed 3 November 2014). Rolenc, J. M., ‘Means, Goals, and Sources of Foreign Policy: The Case of Sweden’, ISA 2013 convention, 2013, pp. 1-41. Rosati, J. A., Link, M. W., and Creed, J., ‘A New Perspective on the Foreign Policy Views of American Opinion Leaders in the Cold War and Post-Cold War Eras’, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 1998, pp. 461-479. Sutter, R., ‘The Taiwan problem in the second George W. Bush Administration-US officials Views and Their Implication for US Policy’, Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 15, no.48, 2006, pp. 417-41. The University of Virginia, ‘Foreign Affairs’, http://millercenter.org/president/bush/essays/biography/5 , 2014 (accessed 3 November 2014). Read More