American Foreign Policy and the George W. Bush Administration
Kari Andren–April 14, 2006
America’s foreign policy is a complex collection of laws, statements, initiatives, treaties, sanctions, and other agreements. It encompasses our relations with all other states in the international political system and its contributors extend across all three branches of government, interest groups, and the media. Before an analysis of America’s current foreign policy can commence, an outline of this policy must be established. Because of the magnitude of America’s entire foreign policy, this paper will limit its scope to the major goals, actions, and intentions of the executive branch, primarily the president and key secretaries, concerning situations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gaza region. It will then look to analyze how these policies will keep the United States active internationally and away from the isolationist tradition that existed before World War II.
James McCormick, in his book American Foreign Policy and Process, characterizes Bush’s foreign policy as defensive realism combined with a distinct form of idealism based on moral principles (219). Defensive realism maintains several of the key assumptions of classical realism, Bush’s initial set of foreign policy principles:
- that states are the principal actors in foreign policy and that actions between states take precedence over actions within states
- that a state’s interests are determined by its power relative to other states and accordingly seeks to expand its influence
- that a focus should be placed on maintaining favorable relations with other major powers since these states are the most likely to threaten and compete with America (210).
Defensive realism differs from classical realism only in that it places insecurity, not power and confidence, as the motivation of a state to expand its influence and project its values. In other words, “For the classical realist, states expand because they can; for the defensive realist, states expand because they must” (219). Moreover, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, idealism, a moral imperative, and an increasing concern for the internal composition of other states have provided a driving force behind America’s actions. Although McCormick primarily examined Bush’s foreign policy in his first administration, U.S. foreign policy is arguably continuing in the same style with Bush’s second term in office.
Some changes in the foreign policy process during Bush’s second term have come with the confirmation of former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as the administration’s new Secretary of State. According to an analysis in the Los Angeles Times, Secretary Rice will delegate more decision-making (or at least decision-making preparation) to her inner circle of State Department colleagues (Richter, par. 25). She hopes that with strong emphasis placed on advocacy for democracy, President Bush can steer his image away from simply being a “war president” (par. 12). With her bold, direct manner and close association with the president, his opinions, and his policies, Secretary Rice will help to make the United States’ responses to foreign policy issues much faster, more forceful and better synthesized (Richter, par. 21).
America’s current foreign policy is primarily focused on three goals: spreading democracy and ending tyranny, fighting terrorism and protecting American security, and promoting free and fair-trade internationally. In his second inaugural address, President Bush said:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. [...] So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world (pars. 4, 7).
Spreading democracy, and in doing so, ending tyranny, has emerged as Bush’s superlative foreign policy goal. Spreading democracy reflects American values like the desire for freedom and the imperative of human dignity that transcends all nations and cultures
(United 3). America has taken and continues to take steps to establish democratic governments, particularly in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gaza.
In Afghanistan, the United States worked to institute a freely elected government, which has replaced the tyrannical Taliban regime. In the March 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy, Bush states that elections are the most visible sign of a free society, but that “they must be reinforced by other values, rights, and institutions to bring about lasting freedom” (5). To that end, the United States has aided the Afghans in producing a written and ratified a constitution guaranteeing human rights and helped facilitated the election of a legislature to represent the voice and will of the citizens. While Afghanistan is on its way to being a stable, viable democracy, Iraq is only in the beginning phases, but the United States continues to implement many of the same ideas.
To promote the spread of democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration worked to remove their tyrant, Saddam Hussein, and recently instituted the first free and fair elections in their history. In addition, a freely negotiated constitution passed by a ballot referendum in an election in which nearly ten million Iraqis participated. Late in the first Bush administration, only a few Iraqi army battalions existed; now more than 80 Iraqi battalions are fighting the insurgency themselves in their own country (Bush Calls, par. 49). The United States continues to fight alongside the Iraqis in hopes that they will become viable and that democracy will take root and produce a freer, more stable state.
In the Gaza, the negotiated border agreements between Israel and Palestine and the recent Palestinian election provide a third area of America’s democratic expansion. One of President Bush’s visions was for two states, Israel and Palestine, to coexist in peace as defined in the Road Map (President Meets, pars. 4, 33). In November 2005, border agreements were completed stating that Israel would withdraw from the Gaza Strip, thus returning control of the territory to the Palestinians. The agreement also facilitates movement of people and cargo across borders with fewer obstacles, construction of a Palestinian seaport and airport, and freer trade (Rice, pars. 3-10). In separating Israel and Palestine and making them into separate nation-states, each can establish its own government.
The recent free election in Palestine was a major step toward democracy. Although Hamas, an American- and European-designated terrorist organization, won the election, they won it democratically and so the United States will hold them accountable for upholding the democratic principles that have been established, allowing Israel the right to exist, and renouncing violence and terror. The United States will support the government as far as it is one of the newest democracies in the international political system and ultimately a step in the direction of American foreign policy goals of ending tyranny and promoting democracy throughout the world (United 5). In broader terms, the administration looks to expand democracy further in several ways. By speaking out against human rights, supporting publicly democratic peoples in repressive nations, using foreign assistance to support the development of free and fair elections and a civil society, and by tailoring assistance and military force training to support civilian control and respect for human rights in democratic societies, more stable, democratic nations can rise and prosper (United 6).
Fighting terrorism and protecting American security are the second key components of foreign policy in Bush’s second administration. Terrorism as defined by Title 22 of the U.S. Code is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Terrorism). In an October 2005 speech calling for a firm resolve against terrorism, Bush stated succinctly the prominence of eradicating terrorism in America’s foreign policy: “We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory (Bush Calls, par. 33). In terms of the broader Middle East, Bush identified a terrorist ideology that exploits and distorts Islam to serve a violent, political vision that creates subversion and denies all political and religious freedoms for its citizens.
To combat terrorism, the administration delineates five counterterrorism measures as part of U.S. foreign policy: prevent attacks by terror networks before they occur, deny weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and their allies, deny radical groups support and sanctuary for outlaw regimes, deny terrorists control of any nation they could use as a base, and deny future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope (pars. 10-14). Foreign policy strategies focus on eliminating terrorism at the source and not waiting for attacks to occur or for such actions to be brought to U.S. soil. President Bush clearly stated why it is imperative to halt terrorists early. If allowed to accumulate greater economic, military, and/or political power, terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: “to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation” (par. 27). Furthermore, Bush asserted that “The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they’re equally as guilty of murder” (par. 45).
To achieve these antiterrorism goals and strategies, the United States has captured and/or killed nearly all the participants in the attacks of September 11, 2001. It has worked closely with allies to expose and disrupt black-market operations in nuclear technology, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and long-range ballistic missiles. Proliferation of all WMD throughout the world is a primary concern, especially when dealing with terrorists, since one terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy and claim a strategic country as a home base (pars. 43, 45). As the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy states, in the short run, the fight against terrorism involves military force to kill or capture terrorists and keep them at bay. In the long run, however, the War on Terror is a war of ideas and so must be fought with our political, diplomatic, moral, and ideological powers. Fighting terrorism then is also closely tied with spreading democracy and the values associated therein.
The final key component of the current U.S. foreign policy is the promotion of free and fair trade around the globe. America values the competition that capitalism drives and holds economic freedom as a moral imperative. As stated in the 2006 National Security Strategy, “the liberty to create and build or to buy, sell, and own property is fundamental to human nature and foundational to a free society” (27). American foreign policy therefore advocates the establishment of such economic systems in other states. To achieve this goal, the United States encourages economic development and promotes reform in states with controlled, oppressive, or stagnant economies. Through the World Trade Organization, bilateral and regional trade agreements, and through diversifying global energy markets (particularly oil production and consumption), U.S. foreign policy looks to ensure stability and growth in the international financial system (United 27-29). Although it could have been tempting, with the rise of economic competitors like China and India, for America to retreat from the worldwide marketplace, the Bush administration stresses the need for the U.S. economy to gain flexibility to remain competitive in a dynamic global economy (State 2005, par. 6).
American foreign policy as it has been established under President Bush’s second administration will not isolate the United States from the global community; instead, the activist, expansionist policies that America promotes and acts upon keep the country dynamically involved in foreign affairs. In his 2005 State of the Union address to Congress, Bush stated that America rejects the false comforts of isolationism, that there is no peace or honor in retreat from global conflicts, and that the United States will never surrender to evil (par. 9-10). The only way to protect the American people, secure peace, and control America’s destiny is through leadership on the global scale. Isolationism would tie our hands in defeating our enemies and in helping our friends, and in the absence of American leadership, more dangerous situations may arise. The United States, therefore, chooses to lead “because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan rejected isolation and retreat because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march” (par. 27). With involvement in nations around the world to further American foreign policy goals and a refusal to retreat in the global arena, the current policy is not isolating the United States.
The international conditions and conflicts facing America today are similar to those it faced during the Cold War. Although the overall context of America’s actions may be different, the broader nature of them is not; during the Cold War, our actions were anti-Communist, today they are anti-terrorist. In both cases, the United States has been strongly committed to a clear, set course of action abroad and willing to act alone in the absence of allied diplomatic or military assistance (McCormick 239).
President Bush characterized the current global conditions in terms of a dichotomous and stark nature of the global struggle between the way of terror and the way of freedom, a struggle between those states supporting terrorism and those against it, and the struggle between the civilized and uncivilized states in the world (McCormick 220). This description of world affairs closely resembles some of the key components of the foreign policy thought that developed during the Cold War era. Just as America viewed democracy as good and communism as bad, so is the current opinion that democracy is good and tyranny and terrorism are bad. The current policy places an emphasis on fighting terrorism and protecting American security through abolishing tyranny and spreading democracy just as we sought to contain Communism and expand democracy during the Cold War. Finally, the United States continues to view itself as a model for struggling and/or developing countries to look to as the prime example of democracy and capitalism.
If the foreign policies of administrations were not isolationist during the Cold War, and current international conditions and foreign policy are like those of the Cold War era, it stands to reason that the current American foreign policy is accordingly not isolationist and will not become so in the near future. The United States’ active role in the international system and its aims of spreading democracy, fighting terrorism, and promoting free and fair trade through capitalism ensure that it will not again isolate itself from the rest of the global community. The policy of the Cold War era was containment-the first sharp change in direction from the isolationist tradition that had persisted nearly from the establishment of the United States to the end of World War II.
Bush’s version of American foreign policy will not isolate the United States because it is based in part on moral principles. Although many U.S. actions substantiate the position of defensive realism, like the Cold War era, that position is driven primarily by the American values of freedom, democracy, and capitalism. Because values serve to motivate U.S. foreign policy actions, America would arguably not be motivated by that which is not a value, namely isolationism. It is clear, then, that America’s foreign policy goals are spreading democracy and ending tyranny, fighting terrorism and protecting American security, and promoting free and fair trade worldwide. The ideology and strategy that prevents America from being isolated are similar today to what it was at the onset of the Cold War, even though the contexts and implementation may be somewhat different.
Works Cited
Bush, George W. “President Meets with E.U. Leaders.” Justus Lipsius. Brussels, Belgium. 22 February 2005. 1 April 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/print/20050222-8.html.
Bush, George W. “President Bush Calls for Firm Resolve Against Terrorism.” National Endowment for Democracy, Washington D.C. 6 October 2005. 1 April 2006. http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Oct/06-209011.html.
Bush, George W. “President Sworn-In to Second Term: Inauguration 2005.” Washington D.C. 20 January 2005. 26 March 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html.
Bush, George W. “State of the Union Address 2005.” U.S. Capitol, Washington D.C. 2 February 2005. 26 March 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html.
Bush, George W. “State of the Union Address 2006.” U.S. Capitol, Washington D.C. 31 January 2006. 26 March 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/.
McCormick, James M. American Foreign Policy and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005.
Rice, Condoleezza. “Joint Press Availability with European Union High Representative Javier Solana and Quartet Special Envoy Jim Wolfensohn.” David Citadel Hotel, Jerusalem. 15 November 2005. 28 March 2006. http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=118538&src=0.
Richter, Paul. “Rice Reshaping Foreign Policy.” Los Angeles Times on the Web. 15 March 2005. 28 March 2006. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-rice15mar15.1.5658136.story?ctrack=1&cset=true.
“Terrorism FAQs.” The War on Terrorism. Central Intelligence Agency. 25 April 2005. 13 April 2006. http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html.
United States Office of the President. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. 22 March 2006. 8 April 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf.
