Bush’s maturing foreign policy

[Philip_P]

So is it just me or has there been a subtle shift in the president’s foreign policy this term? In his first term, the president claimed to have looked into Putin’s eyes to take the measure of his soul, and to have liked what he saw there. Now he’s taking Putin to task for backsliding on democracy. Today he was in Georgia praising that nation’s embrace of democracy.

So far, I like Pres. Bush’s second term foreign policy far better than his first. Going around the world championing democracy by actually going to countries making progress on this and challenging the nations that ought to be leaders here and aren’t. Imagine if the first term had been similar – engagement with Iran to support the democratizing reformers there rather than declaring that country an axis of evil. Welcoming Turkey’s aspirations to further its democracy, building a strong alliance with a moderate, pro-West Islamic nation, rather than beating it over the head with requests to use it as a staging ground for invading neighboring Iraq. If only, if only.

There are welcoming signs that Bush’s foreign policy has matured. Let’s hope it’s no false spring.

 

[Steph700]

Yes, I’ve been scratching my head a lot lately when I see this stuff in the news. Are his policies actually changing or just his approach? I really don’t have a clue. Neither does he though, usually. But in all seriousness, I am watching him with more interest.

 

[beckers]

I believe this is a normal shfit in political power for a president. On the home front he doesn’t have as much power anymore. He is kind of a lame duck president when it comes to domestic issues. On the other hand he has lots of power and influence over foreign issues. It’s werid. The president gets support for his domestic issues during his first term because no one knows how he operates and how long you are going to be in there for. Plus you kind of have this mandate from the people to do something different from the last guy in power and both parties know that. It gives you some power to play with. On your second term- the other party knows you and knows that you are only there for 4 more years and so they can stall and do other things and your own party will leave you because the are gearing towards getting ready for the next election domesticly BUT the rest of the world sees that you got re-elected and that carries power.The rest of the world sees that this guy has a mandate from his people and he can start wars and make foreign policies without anyone elses permission.

I think bush is doing excatly that. People know he is going to stand behind what he says.No matter if you think his policies are good or not they have changed our world.

God Bless,
Beckers

 

[jlw]

So is it just me or has there been a subtle shift in the president’s foreign policy this term?

Nope. Same words. It just his ACTIONS in the first term lend weight to his words today.

In his first term, the president claimed to have looked into Putin’s eyes to take the measure of his soul, and to have liked what he saw there.

Trust, but verify.

Now he’s taking Putin to task for backsliding on democracy. Today he was in Georgia praising that nation’s embrace of democracy.

As he ought to, and good for him.

So far, I like Pres. Bush’s second term foreign policy far better than his first. Going around the world championing democracy by actually going to countries making progress on this and challenging the nations that ought to be leaders here and aren’t.

Visits and words don’t mean much if you can’t back it up. He backed it up in his first term. Lybia saw it, Syria is seeing it. The world sees it.

Imagine if the first term had been similar – engagement with Iran to support the democratizing reformers there rather than declaring that country an axis of evil.

To suggest that Iran was hunky-dory and then all of a sudden because Bush calls them names they “start” defying democracy and supporting terror??? Please. He put them on notice (just like he is being outspoken about Russia?) And “democratizing reformers”??? Huh?? Reformers and dissenters of the totalitarian regime in Iran are shot!! What are you talking about??

Welcoming Turkey’s aspirations to further its democracy, building a strong alliance with a moderate, pro-West Islamic nation, rather than beating it over the head with requests to use it as a staging ground for invading neighboring Iraq

Pu-lease. Nice in theory, not very nice-n-tidy in reality. And forging alliances and requesting airspace and staging grounds aren’t an either/or proposition.

If only, if only

If only we didn’t invade and rout the terror supporting Taliban and free millions, and began to rebuild a free democracy, and if only we didn’t remove terror supporting Saddam and free millions, and began to rebuild a country into a free democracy, then Bush probably would not be recieved the way he is in Eastern Europe and the still-oppressed peopl of the middle east who hope for freedom some day.

There are welcoming signs that Bush’s foreign policy has matured. Let’s hope it’s no false spring.

That is silliness. Your perception of Bush has matured. His foreign policy hasn’t changed. His words have been the same, the action backed up his words, therefore when he speaks, people remember his actions, and hear his words.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

That is silliness. Your perception of Bush has matured…

Impossible, I’m infallible!

Seriously, though, while your suggestion is possible, I don’t think it’s likely. I’m not an ideologue; my opposition to Bush has always been based on my belief that he’s made bad decisions, not because he’s a Republican, or anything like that. Looking back at his first term, I still find that I still disagree with the same decisions I disagreed with then. My perception of a change in his policy is strictly related to actions he’s done in his second term.

But maybe I should expand further on where I see a change. I think Iran is a good example. In contrast to his first term stance toward Iraq, I think it’s highly unlikely that we’ll be invading Iran. No more talk about an axis of evil, no talk of regime change. All this, in spite of the fact that Iran is far more dangerous today than it was during his first term, and far more of a threat than Iraq ever was.

Then there’s North Korea. During the Clinton administration, talks with NK convinced it to drop its nuclear aspirations, an agreement it reneged on. The apparent conclusion Bush drew was that talks didn’t work, and he refused to talk with NK. That, apparently, hasn’t worked either, and now we’re apparently going to talk to NK.

In both Iran and NK, this turn to soft power and diplomacy rather than invasion and regime change is a significant change. Strip away the rhetoric, and Bush’s second term foreign policy is beginning to look somewhat, well, Clintonian, if not outright Bush I. Apparently the spirit of Colin Powell lives on, even if the man has been dismissed.

My question though is 1) has there really been a change and 2) how much of it is due to authentic maturation of his foreign policy, and how much due to the fact that much of our army is in Iraq, thus making it largely impossible to undertake anything like an invasion of Iran?

 

[jlw]

But maybe I should expand further on where I see a change. I think Iran is a good example. In contrast to his first term stance toward Iraq, I think it’s highly unlikely that we’ll be invading Iran.

But now we have 'em surrounded.

No more talk about an axis of evil, no talk of regime change.

On the contrary, there is talk, just not militarily.

All this, in spite of the fact that Iran is far more dangerous today than it was during his first term,

I’d say it is about the same. Dangerous then, dangerous now. Bush didn’t make them “more” dangerous.

and far more of a threat than Iraq ever was.

A threat in a different way. BOTH ignored sanctions and UN resolutions. BOTH were thought BY MANY to be trying to “go nuclear”, and BOTH have ties to N Korea arms deals. Strategically, we had already toppled the Taliban, the main (but not the only) protector, funder, and trainer of bin Ladens terrorists. Saddam, given his 12 history of defying the world, given his wmd desires (if not capabilities), Iraq was better and safer target, and secular enough to transform from totalitarian to democratic ways of government. The Iranian mullahs in Iran are a little different story.

Then there’s North Korea. During the Clinton administration, talks with NK convinced it to drop its nuclear aspirations, an agreement it reneged on.

Let’s not forget THAT. They didn’t renege on it in Feb 2001.

The apparent conclusion Bush drew was that talks didn’t work, and he refused to talk with NK. That, apparently, hasn’t worked either, and now we’re apparently going to talk to NK.

Actually what didn’t work was JUST the U.S. talking to N Korea. What was a better strategy was have Japan, China, and other regional governments be in on the talk as well. THERE WAS DIOLOGUE. We are interveneing a bit more now.

In both Iran and NK, this turn to soft power and diplomacy rather than invasion and regime change is a significant change

. No “change” really. Look, a good fottball team runs AND passes. All Bush did was run some people over, and set 'em up for a stead diet of passing, marching down the field. It 's called an effective strategy!! Before, all that US presidents did in the face of terrorist strikes on US citizens or interests as to keep passing.

Strip away the rhetoric, and Bush’s second term foreign policy is beginning to look somewhat, well, Clintonian, if not outright Bush I.

Goodness gracious, Philip, what did Clinton accomplish to ward off terrorism??? He kept talkin’ (passing), but didn’t run the ball down anyone’s throat to keep the bad guys in the defensive.

Apparently the spirit of Colin Powell lives on, even if the man has been dismissed

Bush listen to Powell. He went to the UN when Chaney and Rumsfeld thought it was foolhearty. I thought it was the correct move, and it only showed how horribly inneffective the UN is in the face of real bad guys.

 

[Philip_P]

Well it was simply my observation that Bush seemed to have made some changes, and you apparently disagree. Fair enough. It’s not like this is the sort of argument either of us can “win,” and certainly not just a few months into the second term.

Your response raises a few interesting issues, though. I wonder if, among the domestic audience, there’s a tendency to see the world through the lense of terrorism. For instance, although I didn’t once mention terrorism or Al Quada, my remark that Bush’s second term seemed more Clintonian brought this response from you:

“Goodness gracious, Philip, what did Clinton accomplish to ward off terrorism???”

Do you see Iran, Iraq, N Korea, and continuing democratization of E. Europe as all somehow linked into the “terrorism” trope? This seems far too simplistic for me, as if we are seeking a nice bipolar narrative to replace the Cold War US vs. USSR model. I think it’s a mistake to try to squeeze all of foreign policy into an anti-terrorism storyline. I mean, isn’t it possible that Iran wants nuclear weapons for its own ends, and not primarily because of some terrorist nature? What about nations such as Pakistan and India, who have become rogue nuclear powers but don’t fit neatly into our US vs. Terrorists model?

Also, your remark about the UN being “horribly ineffective in the face of real bad guys,” raises the issue of what, exactly, we expect from the UN. The UN is weak by design, only as strong as its member nations allow it to be. If the UN is ineffective, then as the world’s reigning superpower, we really only have ourselves to blame. Carp all you want about obstruction by France and other nations, what this reveals is our inability to convincingly gain international support. Why blame France for our diplomatic incompetence? Come on, you’re a conservative, you should be the first one to admit that we ought to take responsibility for our failures rather than try and pin the blame elsewhere.

And how strong do we want the UN, anyway? People spin fantasies about the UN being a world government, and then use the fact that it is NOT a world government to criticize it. Before we can reform the UN, we need to know what we want it to be.

 

[jlw]

It’s not like this is the sort of argument either of us can “win,” and certainly not just a few months into the second term.

It’s not so much about winning, but giving your assertions pause.

Your response raises a few interesting issues, though. I wonder if, among the domestic audience, there’s a tendency to see the world through the lense of terrorism. For instance, although I didn’t once mention terrorism or Al Quada, my remark that Bush’s second term seemed more Clintonian brought this response from you:

“Goodness gracious, Philip, what did Clinton accomplish to ward off terrorism???”
A point worth taking. Ok, what exactly did Clinton accomplish in his eight years of office?? Without direct Congressional action?? The credit (and blame) for domestic policy falls on all three branches of governement. Foreign policy (at least it’s direction and scope) is, in contrast really just on the shoulders of the President (and his Sec of State, naturally). So??

Do you see

Iran, Iraq, N Korea, and continuing democratization of E. Europe as all somehow linked into the “terrorism” trope? Do you not see the connection between international terrorism and oppressed people in totalitarian regimes??

This seems far too simplistic for me, as if we are seeking a nice bipolar narrative to replace the Cold War US vs. USSR model.

You are right, that is too simplistic, yet a theory of the Left, designed to undercut Bush’s actions and rhetoric. Look, 9/11 DID change everything. Islamacists were at war with us since…Reagan was in office!! Lybia?? Beruit?? Clinton’s term: Somalia?? WTC '93?? OklaCity?? (Nichols knew some bad guys in the philipines), Embassies?? Kobar Towers?? USS Cole??? WE NEVER REALLY RESPONDED.

I think it’s a mistake to try to squeeze all of foreign policy into an anti-terrorism storyline.

Again, terrorism is linked to oppressive governments who rule there people through…terrorism (fear of being found out, killed, raped, dismembered, etc)

I mean, isn’t it possible that

Iran wants nuclear weapons for its own ends, and not primarily because of some terrorist nature? Very well-meaning, yet naive, my friend. One of the primary supporters of terrorism in the world wants to have nuclear capabilities?? Yikes, to say the least.

What about nations such as

Pakistan and India, who have become rogue nuclear powers but don’t fit neatly into our US vs. Terrorists model? Less India, put Pakistan ain’t a rosy picture. Btw, the alliance with Pakistan is a nice foriegn policy victory for Bush.

 

[jlw]

Also, your remark about the UN being “horribly ineffective in the face of real bad guys,” raises the issue of what, exactly, we expect from the UN

SO very true.

The UN is weak by design, only as strong as its member nations allow it to be.

Right!! And when the member states are full of totalitarian despots, how does that serve the world?? Cuba in the *Human Rights Commision??*Iran in the nuclear proliferation commitee??? UN troops sent to “protect” villagers in Africa are raped and molested by the troops?? The UN Oil-for-Food served Saddam to the tune of 21 Billion, while his people starved.

If the UN is ineffective, then as the world’s reigning superpower, we really only have ourselves to blame.

Agreed. Being in a partnership where your partners work against you?? And staying in it?? Yeah, we must take some responsibility.

Carp all you want about obstruction by France and other nations, what this reveals is our inability to convincingly gain international support.

The number of counties in the coalition today are more than there were in 1991. And I have much more confidence in Poland than I do France anyway, so because France wasn’t on board, I didn’t mind.

Why blame France for our diplomatic incompetence?

Should we be blamed for their incompetence??

Come on, you’re a conservative, you should be the first one to admit that we ought to take responsibility for our failures rather than try and pin the blame elsewhere.

That’s sorta what Cheney and Rumsfeld were saying to Bush: “We’ve been screwing up. For yeeeeears our country has put soooo many of our eggs in the UN basket, thinking they will solve things and…it isn’t so!! Let’s take our lumps, admit that the UN is weak and toothless, take responsibility for our own national security (and that of all freedom loving, but weak, nations) and let’s invade Saddam before he can evade us in any way!”

And how strong do we want the UN, anyway?..Before we can reform the UN, we need to know what we want it to be.

Strong?? How 'bout being on the side of freedom?? How bout less resolutions condemning democratic Isreal, and more condemning totalitarian states-du-jour?? How bout less talk, more action??? How 'bout just a little less corruption and waste of US tax dollars??

 

[Philip_P]

First, it would help to drop the whole liberal/conservative way of talking when discussing foreing policy, as if they were neat domestic blocks. Conservatives, after all, range from isolationists to aggressive interventionists, and liberals have a similar range. I don’t the liberal/conservative labels are very helpful here.

Iran is very scary, and I didn’t mean to imply that they weren’t. What I caution against, though, is putting them in, say, the same grouping as a stateless actor such as Al Quada, or even a neighbor such as Iraq. I think it’s frightening what Iran might do once they get a nuke. However, I also think they’re developing nukes as a means of bolstering their own prestige as much as for reasons of promoting terrorism. Focusing solely on terrorism would blind you to other dynamics at play. Even if Iran were a democracy, I believe they STILL would be intent on getting the bomb.

This also leads to my critique of “promoting democracy = fighting terrorism.” I don’t think that it’s as neat a correlation. I think it’s great that more nations have been making the transition to Democracy (a trend, by the way, which was very strong during the Clinton years too…Clinton also gets credit for promoting democracy abroad - he’s not the antiChrist any more than Bush is).

I also don’t think the terrorism lense is very helpful in dealing with Korea. I agree with the commentators that think it’s all about getting attention and trying to make a play for legitimacy. I also don’t like the options we seem to have there right now.

 

[jlw]

First, it would help to drop the whole liberal/conservative way of talking when discussing foreing policy,

Hard too, Philip. An administrations worldview is worth looking at and analyzing, no??

Even if Iran were a democracy, I believe they STILL would be intent on getting the bomb

BUT THEY WOULD BE A DEMOCRACY!! Democracies don’t attack each other!

(a trend, by the way, which was very strong during the Clinton years too…Clinton also gets credit for promoting democracy abroad

Honest, forgive me, I am at a loss. (Short-term memory loss. ) Can you remind me of regime changes and newfound freedom brought on be Clintonian foreign policy???

I also don’t think the terrorism lense is very helpful in dealing with Korea. I agree with the commentators that think it’s all about getting attention and trying to make a play for legitimacy. I also don’t like the options we seem to have there right now.

I think you are right, different lens, but with a whack-job like Jong-ill, wmd capabilities have anti-US terrorists a bit more interested in you. N Korea has ties to middle eastern countries who aren’t exactly best-buddies with US.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

Democracies don’t attack each other! Honest, forgive me, I am at a loss. (Short-term memory loss. ) Can you remind me of regime changes and newfound freedom brought on be Clintonian foreign policy???

I wish I could just rattle off facts off the top of my head, but I don’t have that kind of memory. I’ll have to pick up some of my old textbooks next time I’m home. Some of the successes I had in mind I was able to find on this site, though:

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/billclinton/biography/foreignpolicy.common.shtml

And yes, I know there were a lot of failures. My point is that there were also significant successes. Some highlights:

• Russia was successfully persuaded to withdraw troops from the Baltic Republics of Estonia and Latvia in 1994
• NATO expansion
• Dayton Peace Accords
• Autonomy for Kosovo (not that I’m entirely behind how it was done. True, the bombing of Serbia wasn’t pre-emptive war, which is what really gets me about Iraq, but still, I can’t give our actions in Bosnia or Kosovo unqualified endorsements)
• Helping Russian secure and dismantle much of its nuclear arsenal
• Real progress on N. Ireland
• Expansion of international trade (Yeah, I know globalization has its critics, including me quite often, but on the whole I think it’s a good development)
• A sustained wave of democratization that continued throughout the Clinton years, especially in Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia. If Bush can claim Lebanon, Ukraine, etc, I don’t see why Clinton can’t claim all these either (though if pushed I wouldn’t give either man that much credit, and only do so since Bush wants to claim Lebanon and Ukraine).

BTW, not related to democracy, but so long as we’re talking about Iraq, the Bush I/Clinton containment of Saddam does seem to have worked, insofar as it turns out that there were no WMDs in Iraq….

Also, I’ve always been skeptical of the claim that if all countries were democracies there’d be world peace. I think in many cases democracies manage to fight each other through proxy third world countries. Another phase in globalization, I suppose - outsourcing wars.

 

[jlw]

BTW, not related to democracy, but so long as we’re talking about Iraq, the Bush I/Clinton containment of Saddam does seem to have worked, insofar as it turns out that there were no WMDs in Iraq….

We still don’t know where all his money went, and what it went for. AND, for all the “no wmd” claims, it’s worth reminding all that when trying to find something, “It’s always in the last place you look”

Also, I’ve always been skeptical of the claim that if all countries were democracies there’d be world peace. I think in many cases democracies manage to fight each other through proxy third world countries. Another phase in globalization, I suppose - outsourcing wars.

Hmmm. A fine theory. But for now, I’ll take “more democracy, less tyranny” for a thousand, Alex.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

We still don’t know where all his money went, and what it went for. AND, for all the “no wmd” claims, it’s worth reminding all that when trying to find something, “It’s always in the last place you look”

I know one of the things they were looking for is Botulin, which is also essentially what’s in Botox. Walking on Manhattan’s Upper East Side yesterday, I’m thinking maybe all the Botulin’s been right under our noses the whole time…

H

mmm. A fine theory. But for now, I’ll take “more democracy, less tyranny” for a thousand, Alex.

I think we all agree that democracy’s better than tyranny. I think it’s a goal in itself, though, not a path to peace. We’re in for a nasty shock if we think democracies can’t go to war against each other or commit atrocities.

 

[jlw]

I think we all agree that democracy’s better than tyranny. I think it’s a goal in itself, though, not a path to peace. We’re in for a nasty shock if we think democracies can’t go to war against each other or commit atrocities.

Of course, democracy is not an event, it is a process, and relationships are not static. But can you name any modern democracies that have gone to war with one another??

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

Of course, democracy is not an event, it is a process, and relationships are not static. But can you name any modern democracies that have gone to war with one another??

You’ll have to provide some definitions/limits. What do you consider modern democracies? Do you define it in terms of suffrage? Civil Liberties? To what extent?

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

You’ll have to provide some definitions/limits. What do you consider modern democracies? Do you define it in terms of suffrage? Civil Liberties? To what extent?

Name your definitions/limits. You be the judge. Civil wars don’t count.

 

[Philip_P]

Why don’t civil wars count? Surely the constant danger that the democratic system can break down is a feature inherent in popular sovreignty, that must be taken into account?

As far as definitions, I’ll try to provide a range and then provide examples within it. Don’t know that I’ll have time to do this today or even this weekend, though; we’ll see.

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

Why don’t civil wars count? Surely the constant danger that the democratic system can break down is a feature inherent in popular sovreignty, that must be taken into account?.

The title of the thread is FOREIGN policy. Has one democratic state attacked a FOREIGN democratic state in modern times???

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

The title of the thread is FOREIGN policy. Has one democratic state attacked a FOREIGN democratic state in modern times???

We drifted away from the roots of the thread a while ago. Besides, some civil wars are fought over precisely the issue of whether they’re domestic or foreign (i.e. wars of independence).

Pushing the envelope, the Italian city states, which were generally some form of republic, were always warring against each other.

In the 18th century we have the birth of more modern democracies such as the US (confederacy, then federation) and the French revolution. Britain was well on its way to constitutional monarchy, you could conceivably call it a parliamentary democracy then, which would make the Anglo-American war both a civil war and one of independence. In the French and Indian war, France had as its allies the Iroquois Confederacy, which was a democracy (though this didn’t stop them from being especially brutal and bloodthirsty). In the U.S. westward expansion we warred against the native tribes, some of which were rather democratic. US/Britain again in 1812, Also Britain fought France again, though really by then Napoleon was a dictator, even if he claimed he was fighting to spread the French Revolution.

In 1846 we have the Mexican-American war, Mexico was a republic at this time.

There’s the American Civil War – if the South had won we’d call it a war of independence, and both sides were democratic, though obviously the denial of suffrage for women and African-Americans (who were still slaves until after the war) makes the U.S. at this point less than fully democratic.

1898 is the Spanish American war, Spain was a constitutional monarchy at this time (see loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/ojeda.html)

During WWII, Britain, a democracy, declared war on Finland, also a democracy. The circumstances are complicated, but you can read up on it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

And there’s the perpetual India-Pakistan conflicts since 1947 with Independence and Partition. India is a democracy (they claim to be the world’s largest democracy), and Pakistan fluctuates between democracy and military dictatorship. During at least some of the times of India-Pakistan conflict, Pakistan has been in a democratic phase.

Also, there’s sponsorship of terrorism by democracies against other democracies – you could make the case for the IRA, and a much stronger case for the U.S, especially in Latin America. More than a few times we’ve toppled democratic govs, or supported those who have.

We do see less conflict between liberal democracies, which is what most democratic peace theorists have in mind. Then again, most of these democracies are in Europe, and most have only existed since WWII. (For more on which countries rank as liberal democracies, see freedomhouse.org)

Now I’m not taking a strong counterargument – that democracies WILL war against each other – but the potential for violent conflict is certainly there. Still, it is true that democracies are LESS likely to war. I think a major reason for this is that the general population has to support a war in a democracy. This is especially true the more the burden of the war is spread amongst the populace. People are less likely to send, say, their father or sister off to war than a dictator is to send a list of names to battle.