The Synthesis of Realism and Idealism — Essay Sample The traditional scission within international relations of realism contra idealism in the Bush foreign policy appears subverted, if not altogether archaic. If realism may be recapitulated as the maintenance of state power, whilst idealism signifies the distribution of an internal ideological content according to the framework of international relations, in the Bush foreign policy this distinction is obfuscated: That is, Bush foreign policy reveals a hidden contiguity of the traditional foreign policy split of idealism versus realism; it folds the elements of idealism and realism into each other. In the context of a post-Cold War world, Huntington seeks a new inscription of the geopolitical landscape, a re-orientation of the American position in the world.
Hire Writer In making the decision Bush claimed hat the step was necessitated by the need to protect the United States citizens and interests across the world from terrorists and other enemy states Alterman, E.
It is also in this period that America withdrew from the Ottawa treaty that seeks to ban landmines use or their production. The United States now sits together with China and Russia amongst others that have refused to join in the treaty.
This is just but a superficial look of the trend that has been characteristic of Bush foreign policy, a policy that has been under much criticism both within and outside the United states.
It is the war on terror that has raised questions over it legitimacy and appropriateness with most in the United States questioning whether President Bush has usurped the authority of the congress in the military engagements abroad.
To understand Bush foreign policy, it is important that the analysis be carried out in accordance to the specific region or countries. The United States foreign policy is defined in accordance to the type of a relationship that both states enjoy and how important a country is towards America or the amount of the threat it poses either in trade or security wise.
Europe for example continues to enjoy a lukewarm reception from the United States especially over the much criticism and lackluster support given during the Iraq war. Interestingly though is Bush focus on the African continent more than any sitting president in the white house.
This remains the hallmark of Bush administration-accomplishments in Africa, with most analysts saying it is a legacy building venture. These, together with Doha round talks. President Bush is still contending with the challenges that his policies are producing.
The relation with China is one such headache. Prior to his election, Bush had vowed to introduce a foreign policy that would be a radical shift from his predecessor president Bill Clinton, on the United States relationship with China, saying that he would consider China as a competitor.
The recent decades have seen China grow and emerge from an abyss of unknown to become a global player and a great threat to the United States. Both these nations appear to be on a clashing course, trading accusations and counter accusations.
The issues at hand have centered on the intellectual property rights with the Bush administration accusing Beijing of violating the IPR of American companies. S has also accused China on its human rights record. Notable however has been the cordial relations that the Bush administration and the Chinese government have enjoyed over the past years though underneath they are both very weary of each other and cautious.
With the Korean nuclear headache in mind, Bush has had no choice than to initiate cooperation with China. In fact many attribute the current economic woes in America to the stiff competition from China.
None however has received the largest portion of Bush in terms of attention than the Middle East. It has remained a region that has witnessed a downfall to his popularity ratings in the United States and across the world.
His focus in the Middle East kicked off in earnest after the September 11th attack and war on terror officially commenced after he launched a military strike against the Taliban in Afghanistan and installed in administration friendly to the United States interests.
He also initiated a massive hunt for Osama Bin Laden the Al Qaeda leader but still has not paid off yet.
Following on the steps of Bill Clinton who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, President Bush launched a much-criticized war against Saddam Hussein that succeeded in his removal and execution.
Prior to attacking Iraq, Bush had tried to convince the Security Council to pass a resolution that would compel Iraq to allow inspectors and initiate a full process of disarmament.
It is against this backdrop that Bush went on and ordered a strike starting a war hat has continued to paint him in a bad light. This remains a glaring dent to his presidency. Where initially analysts and the public were supportive of the war believing the strikes against terror would be quick and decisive, as Bush had made people to believe, this support as years went by turned into consternation and apprehension.
Bush is simply not getting enough and wanted a shot at Iraq misleading the congress that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States. He committed troops to Iraq in one of the most costly war the United States has ever seen, costly in terms of financial expenses and public morale.
Both combined the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost the United States over three hundred and fifty billion dollars at the moment and more is lined up by the congressional budge.
This much against growing resentment at home and skepticism over where the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the nation safer.
Political and economic advisors together with prominent policy advisors have admitted that this spending in the war is to blame for the fiscal and monetary crisis facing the country. There is a backlash in the United States economy.
Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska admitted that the war spending have gone way above the prior tentative projections. Putting it candidly, he said Bush was out of touch with the reality. The economic recession in the United States is real. Whereas the current economic wars facing the United States cannot be fully attributed to the war in middle east, as there are many factors in the international system that have contributed to this, the ineptitude of Bush foreign policy has had a role to play, as some analysts concede.
Bush has been unable to combine his ambitious plan in foreign policy with tenable fiscal and monetary strategies to ensure the economy survives the international shocks.
The worst critics of Bush foreign policy and spending are the democrats who justifiably have criticized Bush administration plans to cover the deficit in the war budget with appropriation outside the budget instead of cutting at on non priority government projects.
It was fool handy for Bush to go it alone in the Iraq war as it is the taxpayers who have to shoulder the costs unlike in the gulf war where senior Bush was able to convince allies to chip in.If I wanted to destroy an enemy society, and had a long-term focus, wanted to do it stealthily, and effectively, to make the society destroy itself and the ability to defend itself, I would do the.
Bush’s Foreign Policy: The Synthesis of Realism and Idealism – Essay Sample Home / Essay Examples / Political Science / Bush’s Foreign Policy: T The traditional scission within international relations of realism contra idealism in the Bush foreign policy appears subverted, if not altogether archaic.
Let's Begin Our Journey Of Discovery On This Topic All Scriptures are taken from the Authorized King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise noted. Bush's main foreign policy advisors were Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Interactions with foreign nations during this period included diplomatic and military initiatives in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and other regions, during a time of great challenge and change.
Comparing the Foreign Policy of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton - Comparing the Foreign Policy of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton Towards North Korea Since its creation after the Korean War in , North Korea, also known as the Democratic People Republic of Korea (DPRK), has caused many problems for the United States.
American imperialism is a policy aimed at extending the political, economic, and cultural control of the United States government over areas beyond its boundaries. It can be accomplished in any number of ways: by military conquest, by treaty, by subsidization, by economic penetration through private companies followed by intervention when those interests are threatened, or by regime change.