George Bush Multilateralism

Another principal attribute that disqualifies realism in debunking the Afghanistan War is the fact that America made concerted efforts to gain support from the United Nations (UN) before commencing the invasion. This contravenes the assertion put forth by the realist theory that, a nation does not take the international system or organization into consideration when taking actions directed towards safeguarding its survival. The autonomous action stipulated in realism is particularly essential when a state is threatened and cannot afford to trust other nations. In

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, the first President declared to avoid “entangling alliances” and engaging internationally to not get drawn into war, which the US had followed unless it fell under certain circumstances. These certain circumstances entailed social demands and outbursts for a transition to an interventionist and almost bellicose ideology that drew in the United States to engage in foreign wars and policies.

The grand strategy of President of Bush foreign policy was to promote the spread of American democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and liberate those who are oppressed under non democratic regimes. In order to accomplish these foreign policy goals the Bush administration needed to exert a maximum display of force which was often achieved through military intervention. In the first term of President Bush administration one of the most daunting tasks faced with the implementation of the foreign policy strategy was how America could adequately address the growing

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

The world is in a state of anarchy where there is no authority above the states to control their actions. Realists, who believe individuals are selfish and power seeking, think the world is a self-help system where states view each other as adversaries. The article America First Doesn’t Mean America Alone, written by H.R. McMaster and Gary D. Cohn, portrays President Donald John Trump as a realist who views the world as an international arena where states and individuals compete to enhance security in a balance-of-power system. Trump’s “America first” policy practices realism that increases military power and intensifies the United States’ control over countries such as paper. In this paper, I will demonstrate how depending on realism alone is dangerous and problematic for the United States when it comes to environmentalism such as Paris Accord and trade agreement such as Trans-Pacific Partnership.

There are many ways in which the Iraq war and its aftermath support elements of liberalism. Liberals posit that aggression and war cannot be avoided but can be moderated, if not eliminated, through a collective action. They add that institutions are effective in managing self-interests thereby making perpetual peace and economic development a possibility. Pertinent elements of liberal IR theory to be discussed are the following: value of multilateral approach, aspect of humanitarian intervention, spread of democracy, and the notion of benign liberal empire.

From Theodore Roosevelt’s acquisition of the Panama Canal, presidential power over foreign matters has grown substantially, loosening its grip on the United States’ long standing policy of isolationism; officially abandoning it in the 1940s, when Frederick D. Roosevelt and the United States involved themselves in the infamous World War II. Today, the president of the United States works closely with the National Security Council (NSC), an agency of the Executive Office of the President, to council and advises him on all international, domestic and militaristic matters (American Gov’t, 420). Although the Constitution does not explicitly touch on all areas of foreign policy, it is up to Congress and the federal government to set Constitutional precedents. Over the years, the presidents that have been in office must consult the NSC and all other executive office agencies in order to be well informed on matters and in the process make rational decisions as the biggest world power in the world. In order to fully understand, whether or not an increase in presidential powers is justified when it comes to foreign affairs, it is imperative to assess the works of different presidents since the World War II era onward and the effects it has had on its people, the world, and the country. An increase in presidential power is not justified when it comes to foreign affairs and policy because although they are the representation of the United States when travelling abroad or taking a stance

The Debate over the U.S. invasion of Iraq continues to foment dissension among international relation theorists. While the invasion can be evaluated through different IR theories, majority suggest the invasion can be assessed through two popular IR theories: Realism and Marxism. Also, I found another useful theory, which will fit in the case if this invasion is security dilemma. There is always controversial among international politics scholars, which discussed the theories that were most likely providing comprehensive and insights regarding accounting for this invasion.

In the beginning years, the Bush administration’s policy was aggressive and confrontational. In the later years, there was a change of strategy and it became less aggressive and less confrontational.

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

Thus, in this context of a unipolar system dominated by U.S., it is highly unlikely that a great power like U.S., motivated by its relentless pursuit of power and security, would allow itself to be deterred by U.N. resolutions that do not comply with its own interests. This also reflects the realist interpretation of international system which is characterized by anarchy and therefore, it is not considered prudent for a State to entrust its safety and survival on another actor or international institutions such as United Nations.

When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in

The focus of this study is to critique the neoliberal agenda of multilateral organizations, specifically the World Bank), its role in the global initiative of the Educational for All (EFA) movement through a case study of Tanzania’s educational outcomes.