Bush and Obamas Foreign Policy Position - Essay Example

Analysis of Bush and Obama’s Foreign Policy Position The critical analysis of foreign policies was introduced after the World War I by E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. It attempts to establish a conceptual frame work for which international policies can be evaluated. The international theories can be divided into two schools of thought: rationalist and reflectivist. These theories include idealism, realism, Marxism, functionalism, dependency and critical theory (Crawford 10). These theories provide an avenue for the analysis of the international policies created by the authority under certain circumstances. This paper will focus on evaluating President Bush’s and President Obama’s foreign policy position based on the realism and idealism theory. Political realism highlights the role of the state and assumes that the state’s foreign policies are driven by the nation’s interest. It is primarily based on the state’s efforts to preserve its territory integrity as well as political autonomy. This means that the state interests are based on power and security. This power is defined in terms of military, economic, cultural, diplomatic and economic terms. In a realist state, every nation should use their resources in order to defend their nation. This concept is derived on the fact that the international environment is an anarchical environment. Therefore, regardless of the treaties made by the state, it is the duty of the state to defend its interest. According to the realism school of thought, the state is under no foreign authority (Crawford 15). Political idealism, also referred to as Wilsonian Idealism, holds that a state’s foreign policy should reflect the internal policy. Although it is based on human nature, it significantly puts ethics and morals into consideration. Idealist government fosters equal rights, democracy rule and religion in their foreign policy (Crawford 50). It is based on civilian-scientific development methods rather than war and power. The idealist state emphasizes on the international values rather than the nation’s interest. The doctrines of realism contradict those of the idealist school in that ethics and morality take a centre stage in idealism. During his campaign, the incumbent president George Bush openly declared that he was a realist who was committed to ending the Clinton doctrine and the indiscriminate use of the military force where they did not serve the interest of the US (Mackubin 24). During his campaign, he did not speak of democracy and freedom in the country. He clearly stated that, like his father, Bush was willing to undertake any action for the nation’s interest. He claimed that the time had come when the US was to regain its pride and lost glory. This means that the US was to reclaim its title as a superpower. However, nine days after his speech the September 11th attack took place. The threat on the security of the nation prompted the incumbent president to adopt new doctrines. In his second inaugural speech, Bush advocated for the US to seek and support the development of democratic movements in different nations and culture that are aimed at eradicating oppression in the world (Mackubin 26). Further examination on this statement reveals that this principle is based on dismissal of moral equality in international affairs. It also reveals the need for moral judgment on international affair. It further advocates that the human nature is rooted to traditional laws that are yet to change. In this view, Bush reveals his traditional believe that a liberal system is superior to an oppressive government (Mackubin 30). In his second doctrine, Bush declares his opposition towards the social work theory on terrorism. This theory states that socioeconomic factors are the cause of terrorism. In this doctrine, he attributes the September 11 attack as the efforts of murderous who aimed at destroying the US liberalization (Mackubin 33). He further attributed this attitude to the oppressive system in the Middle East. According to Bush, the September 11 attack was aimed at intimidating the existing democracy and security of the US. He thus recommended for a democratic change of the regime in the Middle East. This involved the use of force so as to eradicate the tyranny regime. This clearly depicts Bush’s doctrines were based on the realism school of thought. The last principle in Bush’s doctrine is the acceptance that previously effect methods to security threats are no longer effective. The traditional methods previously used include negotiation, containment and deterrence. These methods had proved ineffective in preventing the oppressive regimes from obtaining weapons used in terrorism. It was thus necessary for the US to engage in a preventive war so as to sustain its security. According to the realism principles, the problems solved by war emerge from security threat on a state. It is thus the state’s obligation to use its available resources so as to maintain it political autonomy and boundary integrity (Mackubin 40). The international law has recognized the need for a state to engage in a preemptive strike against another state if the latter country plans to attack it. However, it has rejected the launching of a preventive war against another state. This is because the war is against the moral principle of human existence. However, according to Bush’s doctrine, United States reserved the rights to launch a preventive war against the Middle East. According to the realism principle, the state’s interests are under no international obligations regardless of the treaties it has signed. According to Bush, the USA reserves the right to defy the international laws in order to protect its interest (Mackubin 30). During his campaign, President Obama advocated for the use of democracy and diplomacy in rebuilding the lost glory of United States. During his inaugural speech, he promised to redeploy the military troops in Iraq. He further emphasized the use of diplomacy to rebuild broken relationship and establish strong alliances with the surrounding nations. This goes along the idealism principle which advocates for the use of diplomacy to address the state’s interest. During the speech, Obama stated that one of his foreign policy was to fight poverty on a global scale. He advocated for global education, generating of wealth and health healthy communities. Obama challenged the developed nations to assist the developing countries to achieve their goals. According to the idealism principle, the goal is to apply domestic policies globally. It also involves unifying other nations for a common good. Although Obama’s principles were based on idealism theory, some of his policies reflect realism principles. Obama took office during a time when America was facing hard economic times as well as war in the Middle East. Although he openly criticized the outgoing regime, he acknowledged that the use was a sovereign state. This means that the Unites States was justified in using military forces for purposes other than self defense. He acknowledged that, for peace to reign in the Middle East, the oppressive regime had to be removed. According to the realism theory, the process of gaining power involves ascertaining facts and giving meaning through reasoning. It involves the use of reasoning in implementing an international policy. He further explained that, for peace to prevail, the United States was bound to make sacrifices. In Oslo Obama portrayed himself as both an idealist and realist. He advocated for both peace and justice in the US. In the realistic view, Obama acknowledged the drawbacks of the international institution as well as the presence of evil in the world. During his address, he spoke of justice for the exploited citizens of the Middle East through sacrifice and negotiation. However, due to the limitations of the international laws, the use of force is unavoidable. Obama also advocated for the avenue of negotiations with the tyrant regime so as to promote peace (Crawford 45). In conclusion, the doctrines of Bush clearly identify him as a realist. The doctrines were based on hegemonic stability theory and democratic theory of peace. This means that a liberal state does not arise spontaneously but rather requires the willingness of a nation to provide security and economic stability. According to Bush, the USA had to sacrifice its resources in order to address its insecurity problem. The use of military force is justified if the interests of the state are addressed (Mackubin 39). On the other hand, Obama displays a combination of both the realist and idealism principles. During his inaugural speech, he employed both this principles. Although he acknowledges the use of war for a nation’s interest, he advocates for the exhaustion of diplomacy before engaging in war. Works Cited Crawford, Renald. Idealism and Realism in International Relations. London: Routledge, 2000. Print. Mackubin, Thomas. “The Bush Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of Republican Empire.” Oris, 53.1 (2008): 23-40. Print. Read More