Has the 21st Century really seen a dramatic shift in the principles of US foreign policy?

Introduction

The following report aims to answer the question as to whether the principles of US foreign policy have really changed in the 21st century.

The discussion of the US foreign policy will be organised chronologically. First, the principles adopted by G.W. Bush’s administration will be investigated while drawing comparisons to the previous administrations, notably Clinton’s and George H.W. Bush’s presidencies. Further, the approach adopted by the new administration led by Obama will be analysed and finally, conclusions will be drawn.

The main part of the report will deal with national security issues, in particular, with problems associated with the Middle East, as this region has dominated US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. However, the report will also shortly outline the US position with regards to the global economy and environmental issues.

Bush’s administration and 9/11

National security policy

When G.W. Bush took office as the president of the US, his approach to the foreign affairs suggested a new realism combined with a heightened tendency for unilateralism (Kane, 2009, p.9). The administration’s national security policy was primarily focused on transforming the military, notably on developing a National Missile Defence (NMD) system, which was, despite wide ranging criticism, justified by a need to protect itself from limited attacks from terrorist group or ‘rogue states’. In fact, the administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build this system (Fischer, 2008, p.138).

With regards to the international affairs Bush pledged not to involve US in ‘nation-building’, thus suggesting a more restrained foreign policy (Herbert, 2006, p.235). However, the events of 9/11 transformed not only the US foreign policy but the whole political situation dramatically. On the 20th September President G.W. Bush declared in his address to the Congress:

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbour terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” (Bush, 2001).

Hence, as opposed to the two post-Cold War administrations led by Bush Sr. and Clinton both of whom struggled with development and articulation of a clear, publicly defensible foreign policy strategy and vision (Dumbrell, 2008, p.91-103), Bush Jr. administration could restore, as a result of the terrorist attacks, the issue of national security as the central principle for US foreign policy.

Consequently, not only the administration’s attitude to the world and the resulting policies but also the leadership style of Bush changed as the presidential leadership was once again reaffirmed (Dumbrell, 2003, p.276). Despite his initial weaknesses in foreign policy, Bush began to assert his leadership after the 9/11 (Abelson, 2009, p.101). This was reinforced by a tight management and centralisation of his team, which led to an exclusion of wider input of personnel and thus reduced the expertise of policy makers (Peele, 2006, p.89).

A consequence was a foreign policy that was underpinned by administration’s new principles, which were embodied in what became known as the ‘War on Terror’ and the ‘Bush Doctrine’. Its key elements as defined by Singh (2006, p.12) were:

policy of ‘pre-emption’
‘regime change’ for ‘rogue states’
democracy promotion
confronting the nexus of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and catastrophic terrorism.

Shortly after the attacks Congress had passed a resolution, which authorised the use of force against the terrorists. From this point, the machinery of an aggressive military action was set in motion (Crockatt, 2003, p.147).

Given that the Taliban regime was broadly perceived to be illegitimate, US received wide international support for the invasion in Afghanistan; however, the war in Iraq was broadly condemned. After all, neither did Iraq possess WMD, nor had it substantive links to al Qaeda (Finlan, 2006, p.160). Even more, Iraq invasion did not receive UN mandate, thus for the first time in the modern era US took a pre-emptive action without the support of a broad alliance of countries (McKay, 2009, p.420-421). In addition, Bush had nominated in his famous ‘Axis of Evil’ Iran and North Korea as further potential threats (Crockatt, 2003, p.157).

According to Herbert (2006, p.238) ‘Bush’s Doctrine’ can be regarded as a fundamental assault upon the international order. Although US had pursued regime change covertly in the past, now it was publicly claiming the right to intervene anywhere in the world ignoring any international norms, conventions and treaties. And while in military terms the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ended with a clear victory, it is questionable, whether these were political victories (Fischer, 2008, p.140-143). There have been substantial insurgencies developing in both countries as a result and many (Rogers, 2008, p.366; Dodge, 2008, p.234; McKay, 2009, p.424) point to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

At the end Bush Jr. had rejected both the ‘narrow realism’ of Bush Sr. as well as the ‘wishful liberalism’ of Clinton. Instead he had embarked on a ‘distinctly American internationalism’ and a maximalist foreign policy (Singh, 2006, p.18). Some authors claim that the policy pursued by Bush after 9/11 reflects the neo-conservative agenda, particularly with regards to the Iraq invasion (Herbert, 2006, p.238; Rosen, 2005). However, Singh (2009, p.38,45) argues that neither the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the design or execution of the wars were neo-conservative. Also Krauthammer regards Bush’s approach not as much neo-conservatism as ‘democratic realism’ (2006, p.15-25). Nevertheless, the influence of the neo-conservatives on Bush’s administration has been well established (Hirst, 2009, p.119).

Compared to the Bush Sr. and Clinton’s administrations, which were regarded for the most part as multilaterally oriented, Bush Jr. presidency exhibited a distinct departure, particularly in the extent to which it was acting unilaterally (Peele, 2006, p.89). On one hand, unilateralism was nothing new in US foreign policy; even Clinton’s second term showed noticeable unilateralism (Dumbrell, 2008, p.101). On the other hand, it could be argued that Bush’s administration had taken this approach to a new, almost philosophical plane (Cox, 2003, p.477). Some authors, however, claim that Bush’s unilateralism is simply a continuation of the past fifty years of US foreign policy (Chomsky, 2003; Johnson, 2004).

Further, Herbert (2006, p.247-257) and Okowa (2006, p.20) detect some change in Bush’s second term towards a more multilateral approach and a renewed diplomatic engagement. However, Herbert also acknowledges that it is multilateralism when it suits US interests rather than a genuine commitment to a mutual decision-making.

A final distinctive feature of Bush’s administration was the level of emphasis on ideology in policy-making. Dodge (2008, p.233) argues that it was this overtly ideological promotion of democracy that distinguished Bush’s approach from the previous US foreign policies.

Global economy and environment

Based on the level of protectionism and the international economic integration, US can be considered as predominantly multilateral since 1945. (Gowan, 2008, p.342). Also in the aftermath of 9/11 US has remained loyal to multilateral rules for the most part, even where its short-term interests were threatened (Smith, 2008, p.254). This is not surprising, given the US strong promotion of a stable and rapidly growing world capitalist system.

At the same time it also partly explains the US stance towards environmental issues. While being regarded as an environmental leader during the Cold War, by the mid-2000 US had become increasingly an environmental laggard, particularly regarding the climate change. After George H.W. Bush’s failure as an environmental president and Clinton’s modest environmental efforts, George W. Bush’s administration continued to reject environmental multilateralism, most notably by its repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol (Deudney and Meise, 2008, p.40).

The US position towards environmental issues combined with the many controversial decisions and policies in its war on terror, not least the detention and torture practices in Guantanamo Bay, had attracted widespread criticism and led to rise of a powerful anti-Americanism across the world (Dodge, 2008, p.217). Hence, there was a strong need for a change.

A change under Obama administration?

‘Change’ was precisely the theme adopted by the current president Obama (Dunn, 2009, p.178). Foremost, he promised to pursue a more multilateral foreign policy by endorsing consultations and partnerships with allies and the United Nations (McKay, 2009, p.420). The policy statements of the new administration suggest a largely liberal internationalist approach, while Obama’s policy advisers constitute a mixture of political realists and liberal internationalists (McCormick, 2009, p.145). Some of the first actions under the new admini-stration included (White House, 2010):

closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, a review of the detention and interrogation policy, and prohibition of the use of torture
appointments of Special Envoys for Climate Change, Southwest Asia, the Middle East, Sudan, and a Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
a plan to responsibly end the War in Iraq
a new strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan
a strategy to address the international nuclear threat.

Regarding the interrogation policy, a study by Lankford (2010, p.30-31) reveals that the new standard set by the Obama administration has significantly reduced the risks of potential issues arising from detention and interrogation, however, he also adds that additional steps should be taken, particularly with regards to the causes for torture. Nevertheless, this can be seen as a distinctively positive development.

Also with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama pledged active engagement and has already shown a genuine commitment. However, Obama’s approach, while in general correct, lacks a well thought-out strategy with an enforcement mechanism (Ben-Meir, 2010, p.145). And, as recognized by Indurthy (2010, p.25), there are more constraints than opportunities; hence its efforts to resolve the conflict are likely to be undermined.

Similarly, developments on other issues will be constrained by the decisions made by the previous administrations (Dunn, 2009, p.178-179). Particularly, the legacy of war in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the wider war on terrorism considerably reduces the possibility for a change. Perhaps, it is not surprise that the strategies adapted, namely a short-term troop increase in Afghanistan followed by a drawdown and a gradual and contingent withdrawal in Iraq are very much in line with what Bush’s administration had advanced (Thayer, 2010, p.3). Following the recent developments in Afghanistan, however, there has been an increased criticism and doubt about whether the war is really worth the costs (Sanger, 2010). Further, one of Obama’s mentors on foreign policy, Richard G. Lugar (2010) has argued that there is a lack of clarity and no clear definition of success in Afghanistan. This notion seems to be consistent with regards to the issues in the Middle East, notably in the first year of the new administration, which could be explained by Obama’s inexperience in the foreign affairs. As Kupchan (2010) points out, the second year has seen an improvement in implementation of policy – ‘less talk and more action’.

A distinct departure from the previous administrations appears to be Obama’s approach towards the issue of nuclear proliferation. He has adopted a view that is popular among many security experts – that the vision of a nuclear weapons-free world along with practical steps to achieve this is the best protection against the rising nuclear threats (Cirincione, 2010, p.122).

However, from a different perspective, Thayer (2010, p.3-4) argues, that, despite Obama’s initial rhetoric, his administration is a purely realist one. Having realised the problems with Iran, US is quietly preparing for a nuclear-armed Iran and adjusting alliances and military force structure accordingly. He further identifies similarities between the Bush’s and Obama’s administrations not only with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq but also in the foreign policies towards Russia and China.

Riechmann (2009, p.179,192) goes even further and claims that the agenda of the neo-conservatives that was so influential in Bush’s presidency will continue to exercise considerable influence over the US foreign policy of Obama’s administration at least in the short-term. Finally, some (Goldfarb, 2008; Greenwald, 2009) have refused to accept that there is any change or even a notion of a transformational shift in the US foreign policy principles altogether.

Conclusions

To return to the initial question, the 21st century certainly has seen several shifts in the US foreign policy principles, some more dramatic than others. Bush’s and Obama’s administrations, while both following similar goals in general, showed distinctive differences in the approaches to the foreign policy.

Bush’s initial approach to the foreign affairs was drastically transformed by the attacks of 9/11 and changed to a hybrid mixture of realism and idealism. With the policy of pre-emption Bush had rejected the principle of containment, which had been the foundation for US security policy for decades. Bush’s unilateralism was taken to a whole new level and coupled with the extreme ideological promotion of democracy constituted a radical departure from the foreign policy principles of the previous administrations.

With the new administration under Obama there has been a change, especially in his commitment to embrace diplomatic and multilateral relations while building partnerships and cooperating with allies. Although Obama still promotes continued American leadership, development of democratic societies and shows commitment to American values as the foundation for his actions, his approach to the foreign policy is pragmatic and not ideological. This can be seen as another shift from the previous administrations. However, with the second year of the new administration unfolding, it is still to see whether these changes will be lasting and how great the transformation will be at the end.

References

Abelson, D.E. (2009) What were they thinking? Think tanks, the Bush presidency and US foreign policy in: Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., Ledwidge, M. (eds.) New directions in US foreign policy, p.92-105. Routledge, London and New York.

Bush, G. W. (2001) Address to a joint session of Congress and the American people, Washington, DC, September 20.

Chomsky, N. (2003) Hegemony or survival: America’s quest for global dominance. Metropolitan, New York. Cited by Dawson, A. and Schueller, M. J. (2007) Exceptional state: contemporary US culture and the new imperialism. Duke University Press, Durham and London, p.8.

Cirincione, J. (2010) ‘Taking the field: Obama's nuclear reforms’, Survival, vol. 52-2, p.117-128.

Cox, M. (2003) American power before and after 11 September in: Singh, R. (2003) Governing America: the politics of a divided democracy, p.467-479. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Crockatt, R. (2003) America Embattled: September 11, anti-Americanism and the global world order. Routledge, London and New York.

Deudney, D. and Meiser, J. (2008) American exceptionalism in: Cox, M. and Stokes, D. (eds.) US foreign policy, p.25-42. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dodge, T. (2008) US foreign policy in the Middle East in: Cox, M. and Stokes, D. (eds.) US foreign policy, p. 213-235. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dumbrell, J. (2003) Foreign policy in: Singh, R. (2003) Governing America: the politics of a divided democracy, p.267-285. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Dumbrell, J. (2008) America in the 1990s: searching for purpose in: Cox, M. and Stokes, D. (eds.) US foreign policy, p.88-104. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dunn, H.D. (2009) Transatlantic relations and US foreign policy in: Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., Ledwidge, M. (eds.) New directions in US foreign policy, p.173-189. Routledge, London and New York.

Finlan, A. (2006) International security in: Buckley, M. and Singh, R. (eds.) The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism – global responses, global consequences, p.150-163. Routledge, London and New York.

Fischer, B. A. (2008) Military power and US foreign policy in: Cox, M. and Stokes, D. (eds.) US foreign policy, p.129-144. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Goldfarb, M. (2008) Obama, the realist. Electronically accessed 31st July 2010, www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/11/obama_the_realist_1.asp.

Gowan, P. (2008) Global economy in: Cox, M. and Stokes, D. (eds.) US foreign policy, p.336-356. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Greenwald, A. (2009) The doctrine of fakism. Electronically accessed 31st July 2010, www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-doctrine-of-fakism-14372.

Herbert, J. (2006) Foreign and security policy in: Peele, G., Bailey, C.J., Cain, B. and Peters, B.G. (eds.) Developments in American Politics (5th edn.), p.234-257. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Hirst, A. (2009) Intellectuals and US foreign policy in: Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., Ledwidge, M. (eds.) New directions in US foreign policy, p.106-119. Routledge, London and New York.

Johnson, C. (2004) The sorrows of empire: militarism, secrecy, and the end of the republic. Metropolitan, New York. Cited by Dawson, A. and Schueller, M. J. (2007) Exceptional state: contemporary US culture and the new imperialism. Duke University Press, Durham and London, p.11.

Kane, T.M. (2009) Realism in: Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., Ledwidge, M. (eds.) New directions in US foreign policy, p.5-17. Routledge, London and New York.

Krauthammer, C. (2004) ‘In defence of democratic realism’, The National Interest, 77 (Fall), p.15-25. Cited by Singh, R. (2006) The Bush doctrine in: Buckley, M. and Singh, R. (eds.) The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism – global responses, global consequences, p.18. Routledge, London and New York.

Kupchan C. (2010) cited by Marcus J. (2010) Obama abroad: Flip-flop or holding the line? BBC News Portal. Electronically accessed 31st July 2010,

www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8680614.stm.

Lugar R.G. (2010) cited by Sanger, D. (2010) Afghan deadline is cutting two ways. Electronically accessed 31st July 2010,

www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/world/asia/22assess.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=obama%20foreign%20policy&st=cse.

McKay, D. (2009) American politics and society (7th edn.). Blackwell Publishing, Chichester UK.

McCormick, J.M. (2009) American foreign policy after the Bush administration: insights from the public in: Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., Ledwidge, M. (eds.) New directions in US foreign policy, p.136-149. Routledge, London and New York.

Okowa, P. (2006) United States unilateralism in a multilateral legal order in: Buckley, M. and Singh, R. (eds.) The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism – global responses, global consequences, p.200-206. Routledge, London and New York.

Peele, G. (2006) The presidency, in: Peele, G., Bailey, C.J., Cain, B. and Peters, B.G. (eds.) Developments in American Politics (5th edn.), p.70-90. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Riechmann, A.H. (2009) ‘The moral purpose of US power: neo-conservatism in the age of Obama’, Contemporary Politics, vol.15-2, p.179–196.

Rogers, P. (2008) Global terrorism in: Cox, M. and Stokes, D. (eds.) US foreign policy, p.358-373. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rosen, G. (2005) The Right War? The conservative debate on Iraq. Cambridge University Press, New York. Cited by Singh, R. (2009) Neo-conservatism: theory and practice in: Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., Ledwidge, M. (eds.) New directions in US foreign policy, p.38. Routledge, London and New York.

Singh, R. (2006) The Bush doctrine in: Buckley, M. and Singh, R. (eds.) The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism – global responses, global consequences, p.12-31. Routledge, London and New York.

Singh, R. (2009) Neo-conservatism: theory and practice in: Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., Ledwidge, M. (eds.) New directions in US foreign policy, p.32-47. Routledge, London and New York.

Smith, M. (2008) The US and the EU in: Cox, M. and Stokes, D. (eds.) US foreign policy, p.237-256. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Thayer, B.A. (2010) ‘The continued relevance of realism in the age of Obama: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose’, American Foreign Policy Interests, vol.32-1, p.1-4.

White House (2010) Foreign policy, White House official website. Electronically accessed 31st July 2010, www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy.