1.0 Introduction
Presidential
elections and nominations in America have always been greatly impacted by the foreign
policy as well as the guiding principles that the presidential aspirants intend
to utilize in their administration of the American nation, as well as on the international
arena[1]. As
a matter of fact, many of the current presidential aspirants in America promise
to come up with a workable foreign policy particularly in the Middle East, Asia
and Eastern Europe[2]. Presidential candidates, as demonstrated by Obama,
usually campaign by highlighting the mistakes of their predecessors and
promising to correct them[3]. When the American nation headed towards the 2009
presidential elections, and nominations, a great dissatisfaction was expressed
by the American public towards the George W. Bush administration. There were
many reasons for this state of affairs; apart from the fact that president Bush
was perceived as lacking the persona and eloquence that a president of the
American nation ought to portray, the Bush administration had conducted a great
deal of blunders in their foreign policy[4]. Apart from his inclination towards the
unilateral (acting alone) approach towards foreign policy which led to the
alienation of the allies, the American mission in Iraq as well as the adoption
of “enhanced interrogations” by
President Bush were also considered great mistakes in foreign policy by the
American public[5].
As a consequence of the general feeling in America about President Bush and his
administration, by the time President Obama was running for presidency in the
year 2009, the Republicans were greatly disadvantaged. The Democrats, on the
other hand, seemed to be more advantaged due to the fact that their
presidential aspirant, Obama, was not only vibrant and young in comparison to
his predecessors, but also with the capacity to “rebrand” the United States of
America.
[6]The
main debates, however, have been on the foreign policy approaches of the
Republicans as contrasted to that of the Democrats. Many political analysts in
the United States of America argue that in the current days the characteristic
of foreign and defense policies as political has declined. A November national
survey by the CBS News/ National journal Survey indicated that 45% of the
American address were well pleased with Obama’s foreign policy approach, 34%
his economic policies and 63% his general performance. In most, if not all, of
his actions, President Obama has indicated that he has learned from the
mistakes of his predecessors; this is particularly indicated by his abandonment
of unpopular approaches to terrorism for example the shutting down of
Guantánamo Bay prison. This paper aims at conducting an evaluative assessment
of the foreign policy by President Obama in contrast to that by the former American
president George W. Bush[7].
More over, this paper will also elucidate that Obama has not delivered on the
promises he made during his presidential campaigns and that he has attained
success only when he pursued policies similar to those of his predecessor.
2.0 George Bush’s Foreign Policy
[8]Many
political experts and analysts have portrayed the former American George W.
Bush as a leader who was inclined to the unilateral approach of formulating
foreign policy strategies; as a matter of fact, George W, Bush was responsible
for unilaterally withdrawing the American nation from the Kyoto Protocol deal
which was established to ensure environmental conservation[9]. [10]More
over, during the War on terrorism after the September 9th 2001
attacks in New York, President Bush made it very clear to the rest of the world
that if no alliance was formed to support America on its fight against
terrorism, the United States of America would act unilaterally to ensure that
America’s national security was safeguarded. [11]In
the year 2001 President Bush then went ahead to divert the American financial
resources, manpower and valuable machinery into the search for the then Al
Qaeda leader-Osama Bib Laden- who was believed to be hiding in the Tora Bora
area in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, until his coming from power President Bush
was never able to capture Osama. [12]Another
factor that led to the quenching of President Bush’s political wick is his
foreign policy of “freedom agenda” in which he advocated for an increased level
of democracy in the Middle East and Muslim world[13].
[14]It
was during the George W. Bush administration that many scholars perceive the
American nation to have gone through the most damaging foreign policy incidents;
As a matter of fact, the Iraq crisis which led to the Killing of Iraq President
Saddam Hussein is perceived as the worst Bush foreign policy blunder due to the
adverse effects and loses that the crises brought the American nation. Apart
from suffering damaged relationships with nations in the Middle east, the
American nation lost 4,400 of its soldiers, $ 3,000,000,000 in its financial
systems and a great number of physical, psychological and mental damages to the
American troop and their families[15].
What made the crisis worse was the fact that, it was not necessary for America
to get involved in this war; this was just a case of a wrong decision made by
the person vested with the responsibility of safeguarding the interest of the
American nation and its people-the president. [16]Despite
all his shortcomings, however, President George W. Bush is accredited for being
in possession of admirable capabilities in political street fighting as well as
a great determination and resilience in ensuring that the United States of
America did not lose its position as a dominant nation in the world. A number
of scholars have also been able to successfully illustrate that the success
achieved in the foreign policy by President Obama have only been attained when
he followed on the footsteps of President George W. Bush, for example in the
Libya and Iran crises.
3.0 Barrack Obama’s Foreign Policy
[17]The
foreign policy employed by President Obama in the United States of America is
perceived as an amalgamation of multilateralism as well as a series of
courageous and daring deeds. Despite the fact that the American president does
not reveal much about particular foreign policy issues in any of his campaign
websites, his past actions in his last term as well as the promises he made in
the campaigns for his second term as president can be utilized in the
assessment of his foreign policy strategies. In direct contrast to
unilateralism which refers to a nation acting alone, the multilateralism
approach to foreign policy refers to the process of a president establishing
foreign policy strategies with consideration to the collaboration and
acquiesces of other nations. Since becoming the president of the United States
of America Obama has given much preeminence to the utilization of the
multilateralism approach in formulating foreign policy actions to different
nations of the world, particularly in the Middle East and African regions[18].
A feasible example of the American President applying this approach was
indicated in the NATO involvement in the civil conflict that broke out in
Libya. President Obama acted in a very multilateral manner when he assigned the
American air force and naval military officers to deter the President Muammar
Qaddafi from killing the rebels in Libya; this was achieved by the American
forces obtaining a no fly zone in the Libyan nation. After doing all this, the
American president then allowed the NATO group to take the lead in giving their
support to the rebels in Libya[19].
There
have however been a number of criticisms, most of them by the Republicans,
which have been directed towards President Obama’s approach in the American
foreign policy. According to the republicans President Obama has a propensity
to “lead from behind”[20]. In
addition to this, President Obama has also been accused of being very
‘inconsistent’ in his foreigh policy techniques. This was demonstrated in the
year 2009 after President Obama assumed office[21].
Obama had been inclined to the multilateral approach of foreign policy and when
he assumed power he immediately organized for the American intelligence and
armed forces to find and arrest Osama. Nevertheless, upon receiving news that
Osama was hiding in Pakistan, President Obama instantly utilized the unilateral
approach and ordered for the American military to strike without first
informing the other nations which comprise the allied group. This was a very
courageous act by President obama as indicated by the US Secretary of Defense
who asserted that Obama’s giving a directive to strike and arrest Osama was “one of the most courageous calls…..that I
think I’ve ever seen a president make.” After finding out that Pakistan had
been the haven for the Al Qaeda leader for some years, Obama did not seem as
concerned as many Americans would have wanted him to be. As a matter of fact,
when the American Congress stated the intentions to put a stop to the foreign
aid given by America to Pakistan, Obama was not as cynical to the Pakistani
country as well as its alliance with the US. Obama has also been the point of
criticism from American civil liberty agencies due to his order that Al-Awki- a
top Al Qaeda leader of Yemen-American descent, be targeted and killed.
[22]President
Obama has been accused of failing to deliver on the promises that he made
regarding his policies on foreign policy during his campaigns. When President
Obama came into power he had promised to do away with the offensive approach
that his predecessor-George W. Bush- utilized towards the theocratic nation;
this was particularly aimed at determining the fate of the Israeli nation
through deterring the Iran nation from its development of nuclear weapons. Obama
had made a pledge that rather than utilize the military approach applied by
President George W. Bush[23],
he would make use of negotiation and increased levels of legality[24]. Nevertheless,
when this approach by Obama did not elicit the desired outcomes from Tehran,
President Obama resorted to the imposition of sanctions-a George Bush approach-
without much success. As a matter of fact, in the month of November the
International Atomic energy Agency publicly announced that Tehran was almost
certainly developing a nuclear weapon. The failure of the President Obama
administration to do what it did in Syria and Iraq in Iran is perceived by the
republicans as turning their back on the promise they made to ensure the fate
of Israel. There are many other criticisms that have been leveled by the
Republicans against the foreign policy approach by President Obama in a number
of occasions. Many Republicans feel that the actions taken by President Obama
in his foreign policy in the Arab Spring is not in the bets interest of
America. One such action is President Obama’s involvement in the Libyan Crisis
as well as his haste in abandoning America’s long time ally-President Hosni
Mubarak- of Egypt. [25]Obama
failed when he asserted that America had succeeded in reestablishing its
relationship with Russia. In order to restate this association Obama’s
administration had annulled the intended transfer of a missile defense
structure in Czech and Poland and even isolated the allies all in the hopes of
reconciling with Russia[26];
this has however not happened. Another area in
which barrack Obama tried to bring about transformations so as to pursue a
different policy to that of George bush, and failed, is in the matters of
climate change; Obama and his administration failed to establish an accord by
the end of the Copan Hagen Summit in the year 2009.
Despite
such criticisms, however, President Obama has been able to achieve a number of
successes; firstly, the Libyan crisis was resolved after the rebels killed
ousted from power and their killed their authoritarian president. Secondly,
president Obama was able to bring about the conclusion of the American conflict
with Afghanistan; this conflict which began in the year 2001 was concluded in
the year 2011 when President Obama made the announcement that the number of
American soldiers in Iraq was to be reduced and the missions by the American
armed forces halted. [27]Before
the end of December in 2011 the American war forces were to officially withdraw
from Iraq; nevertheless, the constant conflicts and attacks from the Taliban
necessitated the prolonged stay of the troops, with President Obama announcing
that the American troops would leave by the year 2013[28].
In addition to this, President Obama has been very valiant and courageous in
carrying out his duties as President. In the year 2011, for example, Obama gave
a directive for the American air force to target and eliminate Al-Awki- a top
Al Qaeda leader of Yemen-American descent; never before in the history of
America had a president ordered for the particular targeting and killing of an
American national; Al-Awki was killed on the 30th of September. More
over, Obama has achieved other great feats in his foreign policy endeavors:
President Obama guided the American nation as well as other from the west to
impose harsh sanctions on the nation of Iran so as to deter it from financially
supporting the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Obama
also directed that the state department of the United States of America enforce
sanctions against the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad so as to prevent him
from massacring protesting Syrian nationals[29].
4.0 Conclusion
Regardless
of the fact that the foreign policy of the American nation has been cumbered
with many interesting debates both in the Bush and Obama administrations, the position
for the worst ever president in terms of American foreign policy is generally
agreed to be occupied by America’s 43rd president-George W. Bush. Notwithstanding
the fact that Obama’s initial campaigns were heavily bent towards the America
foreign policy, the rhetoric of the American president has changed and inclined
more towards the financial systems of the United States of America. As a matter
of fact, President Obama has indicated more enthusiasm for the reformation of
the American health systems, the passing of the health care bill and the
generation of employment opportunities in America than in the solving of the
Iran crisis. Unlike President Bush who made it very clear from the beginning
that he would pursue a “humble” foreign policy, President Obama made many
promised regarding his foreign policy approach which he is perceived as not
having lived up to. The economic challenges that currently face the American
nation have caused the general public to shift their focus from the issue of
fighting terrorism, which was very attractive recently; Americans concern is
now focused on how to repay the huge debt that America owes China as well as how
to deal with the intended trillion dollar reduction in the American armed
forces budget. As China rises speedily and aims at take over the Pacific and
Europe is confronted with the Euro ignominy the future of America is worrying.
5.0 References
Ambrosius, Lloyd E., (2006), Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means
in Their Foreign Policies, Diplomatic
History(periodical), 30, pp.
509–43
[1] Lane, Charles,
(2012), The Candidates and Foreign Policy,
The World Affairs Journal
[2] Chang,
Gordon G. (2012), Around Asia, World
Affairs Journal
[3] Fever,
Peter and Popescu, Lonut, (2012), ‘Is Obama’s
foreign Policy Different to George Bush’s, E-International Relations
[4] Jentleson,
Bruce W., (2003), American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the
21st Century, Second Edition
[5] Ambrosius,
Lloyd E., (2006), Woodrow Wilson and
George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means in Their Foreign
Policies, Diplomatic History(periodical),
30, pp. 509
[6] Lane, Charles,
(2012), The Candidates and Foreign Policy,
The World Affairs Journal
[7] Daalder,
Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay, (2005), America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in
Foreign Policy
[8] Jones, Steve,
(2012): Obama’s Foreign Policy Platform:
Running on His Record, p. 1
[10] Britton,
Gregory, (2006), September 11, American
‘Exceptionalism’, and the War in Iraq, Australasian Journal of American Studies 25, pp.125
[12] Lane, Charles,
(2012), The Candidates and Foreign Policy,
The World Affairs Journal
[13] Wright,
Steven, (2007), The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations
of the War on Terror, Ithaca Press
[14] Miks,
Jason, (2012), Who Was the Least
Successful Foreign Policy President, CNN World
[15] Pressman,
Jeremy, (2009), Power without Influence: The Bush Administration’s Foreign
Policy Failure in the Middle East, International
Security 33, no. 4, pp. 149
[16] Fever,
Peter and Popescu, Lonut, (2012), ‘Is Obama’s
foreign Policy Different to George Bush’s, E-International Relations
[18] Stokes,
Bruce, (2012), Post Election America
Still Divided, CNN World
[20] Jones, Steve,
(2012): Obama’s Foreign Policy Platform:
Running on His Record, p. 4
[21] Margon,
Sarah, (2012), What A Values-based
Foreign Policy Would Look Like, CNN World
[22] Lane, Charles,
(2012), The Candidates and Foreign Policy,
The World Affairs Journal
[23] Dalby,
Simon, (2005), Geopolitics, Grand
Strategy, and the Bush Doctrine, Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies
Working Papers (Singapore), no. 90
[24] Lane,
Charles, (2012), The Candidates and
Foreign Policy, The World Affairs Journal
[25] Fever,
Peter and Popescu, Lonut, (2012), ‘Is Obama’s
foreign Policy Different to George Bush’s, E-International Relations
[26] Vajdic,
Daniel, (2012), What Obama Needs to do
About Russia, CNN World
[28] Nehru,
Vikram, (2012), Memo to Obama: South East
Asia Comprehensive Partnership, CNN World
[29] Roth,
Kenneth, (2012), Keep Arab Spring on Track,
CNN World
No comments:
Post a Comment