War on Terror in the Context of the US Foreign Policy Since - Essay Example

How anomalous was the ‘War on Terror’ in the context of US foreign policy since 1900 By 6th January Laws are created in many countries to protect the sovereignty of the people living within the country. Among the laws is a package of rights that must be accorded to the citizens regardless the inclination in terms of ethnicity, race, sex and even an individual’s social-economic status in the society. The justices, which are regarded important for human existence are globally recognized. The rights are, therefore, accorded in equal measure even to the alien community. Circumstances such as terrorism have made some countries to deviate from the human rights in a bid to protect the citizens. In counter attacking terror, most of the innocent human beings get affected in a country where terror groups are suspected to be residing. For a country to act in this manner, a statute modification is established by the legislature. The government in charge mostly proposes the adjustments. The country then looks for the support from the international community especially from the countries that could be experiencing the same nature of threats. The support ensures that the country does not get accused by the United Nations for infringing the rights of people from countries where terror groups are suspected to have a resident. One of the countries that have been on the limelight in formulating an ambiguous law in the fight against terrorism is the United States of America. The United States of America became a major attack target of international terror groups. Before landing in the country, terrorists actively invaded the USA diplomatic centres in many parts of the globe. The embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked in 1998, and dozens of people were killed (Smith, 2008). In the month of September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was fell in the hands of terrorism. The attack of the World Trade Centre became the most historical terrorist activity in the country. The aftermath of the invasion led to hundred of fatalities of the country’s residents. The terrorist activity that is famously recalled as the September 11 occurred during the era of George W. Bush. After the harmful event, Bush administration strategized on the means to revenge the activity. The creation of the National Security Strategy was one of the developments in the constitution amendment that was steered by the president. The strategies that are famously abbreviated as the NSS challenges the foreign policies of the world’s powerful nation (Bush, 2002). Since 1900, the United States foreign policy is based on equality and democracy, as well as respect for to the rule of law and human rights. Therefore, the USA has been detrimental in bringing down the dictatorial rules and planting and watering democracy in these countries. For example, countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently Egypt have been transformed from a one-man rule to the variety of choice in the presidency. The September 11, 2001 assault is believed to have been pre-arranged in one of the Asian countries. In fact, a global terror network of Al-Qaeda was answerable for the assaults. The rebel group was headed by the famous extremist Osama Bin Laden. Osama is said to have trained with the United States Army. From this information, we can deduce the country’s foreign policy that enabled immigrants to train and work with the army. The policy can be dangerous as some of the immigrants may come as spies of the enemy. During the cold war, nations like Russia and USA used intensives spies that revealed the secret of the enemy states. The form of war was dangerous as immigrants were used to spying the country’s security details and to release them to their mother countries. The spy could take an employment in the military field and undergo a serious training. They vow, to serve the country of resident, were misused. In the essence to overcome the cold war, most of the spies, especially in the United States were deported to their states of origin. The New Security Strategy that was enforced in 20th September 2002 is seen to contravene the rules of countering international terrorists (Crockatt, 2003). The United Nations gives permission for a country to use force in countering attacks. For example, if another country attack a country, it can use force to counter the attack. The order of event in this case is that the country must have accurate evidence of whereabouts of the foes. When the United States of America was attacked by Japan in the Hawaii Island, the country could counter attack by establishing the enemy. In this situation, the rival was the Japanese government. The same is applied with the war with Spain. The New Security Strategies, on the other hand, implied that the United States of America could use force to attack a country or a group of criminals within a given nation without any evidence. The strategies emphasize that the action is taken to ensure that the group does not collect itself to a formidable force that could otherwise be difficult to deal with in the future. The measure, therefore, is a preventive action that protect any future threats to the nation and the people of the United States of America. The New Security Strategies NSS is seen to be anomalous from the foreign policies with of the United States of America. The foreign policies influence countries to act in a certain way that is beneficial to the USA (LaFeber, 2002). Such actions are predominantly influenced by the use of AIDs and Grants. The majority of the global states depend on the financial support from the USA. Therefore, the United States can easily influence the developing nations and the third world countries to act in a certain way for them to benefit financially. The use of AIDs and Grants as baits cannot work well in countries that are mostly recognised in terrorist activities. The terrorists are becoming more influential as they can produce weapons that can be harmful to the public. The NSS, therefore, were seen as the best measures of counter attacking terrorist activities in those countries. The National Security Strategies that were put in place via the influence of President George W. Bush also had some opinion for their implementation. Weapon production and the migration of the weapons to the states that commonly practices terrorism has risen in the recent past. The armaments are usually described as those with ability to cause huge damage when utilised. Terrorists can thus use the weapons in a way that can destroy a massive population in the area (Kagan, 2007). The most worry that the president felt was that these weapons could be used to destroy a population in the United States of America. The thought was propelled by the September 11 incident on the twin towers. Therefore, the country was given power by the passing of the NSS to attack the foreign nations that were practicing the production and the transfer of the deadly weapons. One of the countries that first experienced the wrath of the new laws was Iraq. During the reign of Sadam Hussein, Iraq was accused of producing nuclear weapons. According to the USA military research, the country was getting ready to inaugurate its nuclear weapons. The country on its part argued that there were such activities going on in the country. The leadership argued that the country was just performing some research that could establish the production of the nuclear energy (Watson, et al., 2003). In the industrialized world, the atomic energy plays an important part in the running of the industrial machines. Therefore, Iraq argued that the nuclear research, which was being undertaken, would assist the country in producing nuclear energy that could be used in industries. Iraq is considered as one of the rogue nation that have a great number of organised criminals. The terrorists were at that moment believed to be sponsored by the state. There was a great anxiety that the country could sponsor the extremists with the atomic armaments. Since the United States of America was and still is the world leading enemy to the terrorists, there was a high possibility that the weapons could be used against the nation. To counter attack any possibility of attack, the United States formulated the New Security Strategies to ensure that they deal with a future threat. The country now was able to move into the country, attacked the government, and the then president of the Iraq was removed from the power. The president was accused of sponsoring the organised terrorist groups and manufacturing of arms that can kill millions of people. A judgement by the international criminal court later pronounced a death penalty on him. Considering this situation, many of the innocent civilians lost their precious lives. Property and human life were abused. The right to life need to be accorded to every individual in any nation. The united nation organs prescribe that every country must protect the lives of her citizens. The laws become anomalous in that they contravene this basic right. The international organization of the united nation, therefore, neglected to offer protection to the innocent civilians in Iraq. Iraq is not the only state that has sunk to the hand of the NSS. Afghanistan is another country that was levelled accusations concerning its support to the terror groups. The Al Qaeda, which is the leading global criminal gang is believed to have some roots from the country. In fact, the previous government is believed to be part of the sponsorship of the terror group. The United States of America accused the previous administration of delivering support to the group that included armouries and secrets concerning the United States administration. Thus, the NSS, which were affected by President George W. Bush, found its way to the nation (Lewis, 2007). The pre-emptive measures were formulated to interrupt any activity that could cause harm to the people of the United States of America. Therefore, the United States Army invaded the country and disrupted the terrorist activities. The mission of the United States was to disrupt the gang plans that could otherwise have made a great damage to her people. The international community have criticised the United States New Security Strategies that are being implemented to various nations. About the war in Iraq, the accusation that the country was producing weapons regarded to be of mass destruction has caused various divisions. Before invasion, the United States of America failed to establish the fact of its claim that Iraq was indeed producing such weapons. Even after invasion, the United States of America did not recover any weapon of such nature. The division arising from the international community is that when the trend continuous, other countries, which are preparing to launch nuclear form of energy, would be affected. For example, North Korea, Syria and Iran are some of the countries that are working hard to establish nuclear energy in their industries. Their investment in research is accorded so that they can finally produce more goods and quality services at a cheaper cost so that they can compete well in the international market. The United States, through its New Security Strategies, may invade these countries with a claim that they are producing nuclear weapons. The relationship with North Korea has been worsening since the launch of the nuclear energy plant that is currently in use in the running of industries (Lee, 2003). The united states have been claiming that North Korea is producing a nuclear weapon in the plant. The state has thus been warned to stop of sanctions and a viable strike by the United States of America. The action of the United States is seen as to cause a breach of rights of other nations. The reason is that the country does not have strong ground of investigation to establish the truth about the country’s effort of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. The allies are thus alienating from the United States policies. Some biggest allies such as the United Kingdom are becoming reluctant in supporting the States policies (Baylis & Roper, 2007). The allies fear that the policies can easily damage the good relationship with the accused countries. The countries are an important source of market to their products, and thus any crisis may lead to the loss of the market thus affecting their economy. In fact, this right of pre-emption has not been given to any other country except the United States of America. The impression brings fear to other states. Therefore, the overseas relation strategy of the United States becomes anomalous. The supporters of the policy that is otherwise referred to as the Bush doctrine notes that the New Security Strategies is essential in influencing foreign policies. Therefore, the bill does not make a radical shift for the United States of America’s attitudes towards the foreign policies. In fact, it is seen as a continuity of influence that the country has been enjoying over the century. Since the strategies entail the use of force to make the target countries change their development plan, the United States of America is thus seen as to be influencing the democratic activities in the foreign lands. The activity is majorly driven by the belief that the United States of America has the necessary powers and ability to transform the international politics. Politics is usuallypractised to give a transformation that will enhance the livelihood of the citizens. Politicians in every corner of the world actively participate in politics in the essence of making the lives of their subjects much better. Politics in different countries in the world are guided by a national constitution that has been drafted and accepted by the people living in that country. Therefore, different countries have different political perspectives as outlined by the constitution. About this statement, different nations have a different approach to leadership and democracy (Malici, 2008). In some countries, the national leadership is determined by a sequence of democratic elections. Different presidential hopefuls are given a chance to sell their policies that will be used in leading the country. Thereafter, a democratic election is done so that the population can choose from a given number of hopefuls. The majority hopeful is thereafter pronounced as the general winner and is bestowed as the country’s president or prime-minister. The notion of democracy is not enjoyed in all the regions on the earth. Some countries, especially those in the Middle East, do not regard democracy as essential to their everyday running of the country’s business (Ambrosius, 2006). Therefore, some phenomena like elections are not common in those regions. The constitution allows them to choose the leaders of the nation via other means but not via elections. It would, therefore, be unconstitutional to force such a nation to enter into the election in a bid to choose a leader. The United States of America, through the implementation of the New Security Strategies, have encountered this notion of the lack of democracy in this countries. The States claims that the direct rule, that is otherwise referred to as the dictatorship, has an influence in the creation of the organised terrorists. Some countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq have been forced to adopt a democratic style of leadership (Halliwell & Morley, 2008). After the USA invaded the two countries, the demolished the existing dictatorial rules. They then forced in a constitutional amendment that led to the creation of a democratic root of choosing leaders. Therefore, the supporters of the strategies view this as again towards the continuity of the United States of America’s push for democracy around the globe. The National Security Strategies were also meant to expand the United States of America’s military base. In the effort of encountering the terrorist before their attack, the government could easily introduce her army in a possible source of threat. The military will have a responsibility to research and demolish all the possible base that have been established by the terrorist. The action is termed by the supporters of the New Security Strategies as important in protecting the country from future attempt or attack. On the other hand, forming a military base in a foreign land is seen as aggravating fear to that country. Since the United States of America is well known for its strong military, planting the army in any of the nation will instigate fear to both the government and her people in that nation. The sense of superiority complex will make the country be unable to handle its function and deliver her promises to the citizens of that country (Buckley & Singh, 2006). In addition, the foreign policy, which motivates investment to the countries affected, will be slowed down. Investors usually consider security as one of the main requirement for investment. When a military threat is issued to a growing nation will mean that investors will not consider those countries as their leading options. Therefore, the New Security Strategies have failed to give a chance of investment to the affected nations. More so, countries, who have been investing largely on alternative sources of energy such as the nuclear energy, have been affected by the NSS. The united states have failed to establish the true use of this energy in such countries like North Korea. Other countries, which were thinking of investing on such institution would deviate their plans for the fear of economic sanctions as well as a possible military action. The formulation and implementation of the New Security Strategies have been a success to the United States of America on the war on terror. The country has been able to intercept several terrorist plans before they are executed. Some of the influential extremist leaders have been killed. In fact, the leader of the global terrorist network of Al-Qaida, Osama Bin Laden have been killed. Some of the hiding ground for the radicals have been identified and destroyed. However, terrorist activity have been on the rise in many nations (Jervis, 2005). Any country, that associate herself with the United States of America, is being considered to be an enemy of the terrorist and is, therefore, on the threat. The NSS has, therefore, lead to a hardship for the global international relations and policies. References Ambrosius, L. E., 2006. Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means in Their Foreign Policies. The Journal of the Society for Historian of American Foreign Relations, 30(3), p. 509–543. Baylis, J. & Roper, J., 2007. The United States and Europe: Beyond the Neo-Conservative Divide?. London: Routledge. Buckley, M. & Singh, R., 2006. The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism: Global Responses, Global Consequences. London: Routledge. Bush, G. W., 2002. Toward a New Foreign Policy: The National Security Strategy of the United States. New York: New York publishers. Crockatt, R., 2003. The Roots of Terror: Islam, the Middle East, and the United States. London: Routledge. Halliwell, M. & Morley, C., 2008. American Thought and Culture in the 21st Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Jervis, R., 2005. Why the Bush Doctrine Cannot Be Sustained. The Journal of Public and International Affairs, 120(3), pp. 351-377. Kagan, R., 2007. Policy Review. [Online] Available at: http://www.hoover.org/research/end-dreams-return-history# [Accessed 06 January 2015]. LaFeber, W., 2002. The Bush Doctrine. Journal of Diplomatic History, 4(26), pp. 543-558. Lee, H., 2003. The Bush Doctrine: A Critical Appraisal. The Korean Journal of International Studies, pp. 31-48. Lewis, O., 2007. Does the so-called ‘Bush Doctrine’ of 2002 Represent a Radical Shift in the US Government’s Attitude Towards Foreign Policy?. [Online] Available at http://www.e-ir.info/2007/12/03/does-the-so-called-%E2%80%98bush-doctrine%E2%80%99-of-2002-represent-a-radical-shift-in-the-us-government%E2%80%99s-attitude-towards-foreign-policy/ [Accessed 06 January 2015]. Malici, A., 2008. The Search for a Common European Foreign and Security Policy: Leaders, Cognitions, and Questions of Institutional Viability. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, S. C., 2008. Reassessing Suez 1956: New Perspectives on the Crisis and Its Aftermath. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. Watson, R., Gleek, C. & Grillo, M., 2003. Presidential Doctrines: National Security from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush. New York: Nova Publishers. Read More