United Foreign Policy the Bush

United Foreign Policy

The Bush Administration is considered to represent a milestone in the U.S. foreign policy. This is partly because of the events that took place in September 2001 and partly due to the consequence they had on reshaping the foreign policy of the most important state in the world.

The terrorist attacks that struck New York placed in balance several issues. On the one hand, they gave a new perspective on the challenges facing states in general and the most powerful of all in particular. In this sense, it is now considered that the most important threat facing the U.S. And the world is no longer one related to actual military war, but rather one which entangles the entire array of security issues. Thus, the terrorist threat places distinctive attention on economic targets, energetic, military, as well as electronic targets. More precisely, organizations such as Al Qaeda have enabled to transform any place, from embassies to schools and populated areas into possible targets.

On the other hand, the terrorist attacks of 2001 also drew the attention on the degree of preparedness of the U.S. intelligence agencies, the practical forces that back them, and, most importantly, the conduct of foreign policy in terms of political means. To tackle one part of the issue, the Bush Administration issued the 2002 Security Strategy which takes into account the precise new methods used to face the terrorist threat. In this sense, the Bush doctrine states that "America is at war. We will fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. The Homeland Security Act can be considered a corollary to the strategy adopted, not so much from the point-of-view of the time frame, but rather from the point-of-view of the instruments the Act offers the government to considers its strategies against the terrorist threat. Although it imposes certain limitations in terms of civil rights and freedoms, as many of its critics consider, it represents an important instrument in the fight against terrorism from the governmental perspective.

There were several issues that can be taken into account when discussing the new approach to the issue of foreign policy. Firstly there is the issue of the legislative matter, which the National Strategy of 2001 and its reconsideration of 2006 have dealt with. These two documents establish the legal and moral framework for any subsequent actions the U.S. might take in terms of waging war, conducting actions on foreign territory, or breaching human, civil, and social rights of the individual.

Secondly, the political aspect must be taken into account when discussing the new direction of foreign policy from the Bush Administration. The presence of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State enabled the Administration to have an even stronger input in issues such as the Middle East Peace Process, but also a firm stand on issues such as Iran or North Korea. There are representative environments in which the aspect of the change of foreign policy can be underlined because they are seen as important matters the Administration is now more powerfully engaged. This comes as a result of the intention of the Administration to deal with possible areas of conflict the U.S. considers potential sources of war. However, at the same time, the active involvement of the U.S. In the Quartet or in the Korean file can also be considered from the point-of-view of the new security strategy that discusses areas of conflict as potential havens for terrorist therefore as situations which must be dealt with.

Thirdly, the new direction of the U.S. foreign policy must be seen from the perspective of the war in Iraq which is in fact the actual representation of the new strategy. Although the official claim for the reasons used to justify the war in Iraq related to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the subsequent interpretations argued that, in fact, the intervention was consistent with the new approach the Bush Administration sketched out for the following years. In this sense, the 2006 strategy points out that "the long-term solution for winning the War on Terror is the advancement of freedom and human dignity through effective democracy. Elections are the most visible sign of a free society and can play a critical role in advancing effective democracy. But elections alone are not enough. Effective democracies honor and uphold basic human rights, including freedom of religion, conscience, speech, assembly, association, and press. They are responsive to their citizens, submitting to the will of the people." Taking into account the perspective given by these statements, the regime in Iraq was inconsistent to either of the elements pointed out, therefore it was a potential sheeted for terrorism. In the light of the American experience however, there are more and more opinions arguing that such a precedent would open the way for new similar interventions in areas considered to be dangerous for the survival of democracy.

This messianic mission is however not new for the American foreign policy. The Cold War and particularly the Reagan Administration are relevant examples in this sense. The period following the end of the Second World War can rightfully be described as an era of direct and indirect confrontation between two antagonistic forces. The U.S.S.R. was in this sense labeled as the empire of evil and was treated likewise. The major confrontation between the two sides was, most importantly, an ideological one similar to what today is labeled as the war on terror. The experience of the Cold War proved that war can be waged even against an idea and not necessarily a physical enemy. It is widely known the fact that the U.S. And the U.S.S.R. had never declared war on each other, nor did they use the phrase of "cold war" in their diplomatic and official relations. The entire confrontation was in fact an invisible one. By comparison, the war on terror the U.S. And other democratic countries are engaged in cannot visibly identify its enemy. Terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda are not state actors, as the period preceding the Cold War had considered to be traditional enemies. They represent a general, yet identifiable threat.