You are here: UK Essays » Custom Essays » United States Policy

Free Essays - Essays

United States Policy

United States Foreign Policy: Post 9/11

All governments follow in the course of their customary activities the advance and execution of foreign policies, policies supremely designed to support the benefit of the nation-state and to place it favorably with reverence to its competitors or neighbors (Sodaro5). Foreign policy in any nation tends to be shaped around nationalism, defined “as embracing the goals that the nation’s officials seek to attain abroad, the values that give rise to those objectives, and the means or instruments used to pursue them” (Wittkopf 14)

In the circumstances of international relations, foreign policies turn out to be key mechanism for implementing both bilateral and multilateral interaction between nation-states. International policies are far more than ideological positions; they are elements used that actually structure within which political interactions.

There are vast amounts of theories that describe the policy creation process and direction. Some of those theories are that of rational choice and/or rational actor theory, a political science banal of money matters stemming from the theory that individuals are provoked in their economic actions by substance and interest.

Rational selection or rational actory theory as expressed by, among others, Herbert A. Simon and Michael J. Sodaro asserts that individuals behave in politics on the basis of self-interest, seeking to increase their expected gains and reduce their expected losses or risks on the basis of personal preferences and priorities. Applied to foreign policy developed by the government and the political actors who comprise government, rational choice theory focuses on specific choices oriented toward improving national welfare.

Simultaneously, other theorists, such as James D. Morrow, tend to view political activity and policy formation from the perspective of game theory. This suggests that decisions are made in the context of a competitive market and that decisions are designed to either outmaneuver an opponent or achieve parity with an opponent.

Political games offer a mixture of zero sum (i.e., one player's loss is the other players gain in equal measure), variable-sum (i.e., multiple wins and losses occur), and positive or negative sum outcomes. As a metaphor for real world conflicts, game theory offers a lens through which policy shifts can be assessed with respect to the notion that policies are always designed to produce the most positive outcome for each player.

As Sodaro states, governments faced with developing foreign policies are not in a position to consider each policy case separately. Rather, in developing its overarching strategic foreign policy thrust, any government must consider all of the other actors with whom it will be involved and adjust specific focused policies to reflect attendant realities and influences. In other words, to put it at its simplest, a country seeking to enhance its relationship with country A) must also take into consideration how such policies are likely to impact its relations with countries B, C, and so forth.

In the present study, the central issue is how U.S. foreign policies in three key Middle Eastern states are shaped and a determination of which of a set of specific variables are most directly shaping these policies in the post-September 11th world. There can be no doubt that the United States since 9/11 has dramatically changed many of its foreign policies with respect to the Middle East (Asner & Hall).

What began as a declared War on Terror initially targeting Al-Qaeda has become something entirely different. The United States, under President George W. Bush, has not only embarked on a concerted effort to eliminate Al-Qaeda and to remove the Taliban's supporters from Afghanistan, it also led a coalition in the invasion of Iraq (characterized by President Bush as a member of an Axis of Evil) to remove Saddam Hussein from power, as well as implement a democratic government.

This comes somewhat more than a decade after President George Herbert Walker Bush led a coalition inclusive of a number of Middle Eastern states to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invaders (Gaddis 104, Harding 213). In the period from the early 1990s to the present, U.S. foreign policies focused on the Middle East in general and the countries of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and particular, have been restructured to build new relationships, establish new mechanisms for democratic governance, create regional stability, and ensure the ongoing flow of vital oil reserves necessary to growth the U.S. economy (Jervis 213).

It is therefore important to recognize that while many variables shape the American economy, a small handful of variables do tend to predominate in this process. Oil matters and it matters more to America than most Americans are willing to admit. Power politics as understood by Dahl also matters as countries seek a degree of hegemony or influence in shaping relationships in the geopolitical arena (Davis). As significantly, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, democratization and nation building have taken on enormous significance in developing America's policies (Wittkopf 89, Jervis 124).

One can certainly argue that America's policies in a country such as Iraq have a strong humanitarian thrust and that there are other important economic trade considerations that influence policies in the entire region. Further, it has often been suggested that a dominant influence over America's Middle Eastern policies is its commitment to survival (Novak). No casual observer of the past half century of Middle Eastern U.S. policymaking can deny that Israel occupies a place near center stage on the American agenda. However, 9/11 was a seminal event in America's history and one which made this country's citizens and leaders conscious of the growing influence not only of terrorism, but also of militant Islam (Barber 3, Huntington 51).

Samuel Huntington, for example, advanced the hypothesis that the main source of conflict in the contemporary world is neither ideological nor economic but rather cultural, creating a clash of civilizations. Fault line conflicts are seen by Huntington as inevitable when different civilizations finds themselves in competition for resources and power. With the West and the United States at the decline of their respective economic and military power, other civilizations, including the Islamic civilization, are resisting efforts to promote democratization.

These considerations aside, the purpose of the present study is to focus narrowly on the key question of whether U.S. polices in the Middle East in general and with respect to Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, emerge from the need to promote democracy, power politics and geopolitical hegemony, or vested interests in maintaining and enhancing the flow of oil from producer states to consumer states.

Integral to American foreign policy today is the Bush Doctrine which Robert Jervis says represents a sharp break from the president's pre-9/11 views that saw American leadership restricted to defending narrow and traditional vital interests. Describing the Bush Doctrine, Jervis stated that it has four elements:

1) a strong belief in the importance of a state's domestic regime in determining its foreign policy and the related judgment that this is an opportune time to transform international politics;

2) the perception of great threats that can be defeated only by new and vigorous policies, including preventive war;

3) a willingness to act unilaterally when necessary; and

4) an overriding sense that peace and stability require the United States to assert its primacy in world politics (Jervis). Critical to this doctrine is the American belief in democracy, understood as the sole system of government ideology consistent with guarantees of human rights, support for human freedom, and other universal values that will ultimately lead to an eradiation of terrorism and greater geopolitical stability.

The foreign policy of the United States today, said Gary Rosen, is moving into an era in which realism is being repudiation in favor of a more assertive posture for the admitted remaining hegemon (the United States). This represents what Rosen sees as a movement away from traditional realist approaches to foreign policy such what is evident in the Cold War doctrine of containment (Rosen).

The Bush administration argues for promoting the national interest by unilateral and preemptive action if necessary and simultaneously building institutions of democratic governance in states where democratization has largely been unknown. These are the elements that are currently seen by many analysts, including Edmund O'Sullivan, as shaping foreign policy on the Middle East. This problem will be addressed at length with attention to the cases of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq (Sullivan).

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq are significant for several reasons. Kuwait has become a key partner for the United States in combating terrorism, building trade, and ensuring the flow of oil to the United States (Woodward 410). Since the U.S. liberated Kuwait as the leader of a multilateral coalition in the early 1990s, the al-Sabah royal family, and other influential Kuwaiti political leaders have enjoyed positive interactions with the United States and continue to anticipate such interactions in the future. A consultative democracy with an elected national assembly called the Majlis, Kuwait considers itself to be a uniquely Islamic democratic system and has even recently agreed to extend the franchise to women.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, for six decades, one of the few fixed stars in American foreign policy has been the special relationship with the Kingdom. America has offered military protection to the Saudi royal family (the Al-Sauds) in return for the free flow of relatively cheap oil. Every American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has supported this policy, but today, despite continued support for the United States, Saudi oil has become more expensive for the United States (Rethinking the Axis of Oil, 2005).

At the same time, the Saudis are encountering strains from within the country and the need to restructure their own approach to militant Islam. Indeed, Gawdat Bahgat (2003) has stated that 9/11 created a challenge to the long-term partnership between Washington and Riyadh. The Saudi-U.S. oil partnership remains significant despite the fact that the Saudis have increased oil prices and have made it clear that continued American support for Israel threatens the relationship that the two countries have enjoyed.

The stability of the Al-Sauds is nowhere near as great as that enjoyed by the Al-Sabah family in Kuwait. Though both countries are confronting threats from militant Islam, Kuwait appears to be less vulnerable than Saudi Arabia. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 has also complicated the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. This has not occurred with respect to the relationship between the U.S. and Kuwait, which has rejoiced in the demise of Saddam Hussein (Bahgat 1).

Iraq was selected for inclusion in this paper for what should be obvious reasons. The U.S. continues to have a strong military and diplomatic presence on the ground in Iraq and it seems necessary to ensure that the movement to democratization taking place in the country continues and to ensure that ongoing insurgencies in Iraq do not become outright civil war. Indeed, as Jervis has noted, Iraq is very much a test case for democratization and nation building as these concepts are understood by the Bush Doctrine.

These three cases indicate the many complexities of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Other states in the Arabic Gulf are equally significant. Jervis noted that Egypt, Israel, Syria, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Lebanon, and Libya are also challenges for American policymakers. Iran, as it has been for the last almost 30 years, is an acknowledged enemy of the United States and an ongoing source, along with Syria of instability in the region.

Nevertheless, the present analysis of this paper will explore only the cases of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. It is possible to classify these three states according to their degree of democratization and their relationships with the United States. Kuwait can be seen as a democratizing Islamic country with highly positive relationships with the United States. Iraq is a country undergoing nation building, threatened by insurgency, rich in oil, and now dependent upon the United States and its coalition partners for the military and other assistance needed to create stability and order (Lecture 2/11/08).

Iraq is also significant in that it is also a somewhat artificial country lacking in a consistent national identity. Conflicts between Sunnis and Shi'ites and between Arabs and Kurds are complicating democratization efforts. Developing a workable coalition while promoting regime change in this troubled country is a major challenge for American policymakers, a challenge that has certainly tested American ability to promote democratization (Darwish).

Saudi Arabia can be characterized as a kingdom in which mechanisms for democracy are limited and in which there are sharp divisions of opinion regarding the Kingdom's relationship with the West and with the United States in particular (Bahgat 4). Anti-American sentiment led the Saudi government to refrain from participation in the 2003 Iraq invasion and terrorist attacks against American interests in the Kingdom have been ongoing.

Conflict over oil is an important determinant of the stability of U.S.-Saudi relationships. Nevertheless, O'Sullivan has reported that in the spring of 2005, Saudi Arabia's crown prince Abdullah agreed with President Bush to invest more heavily in oil production capacity, to extend a heartier welcome to American corporations, and to deal more effectively with violent Islamists at home (O’Sullivan 5). In return, the U.S. has agreed to stop criticizing Riyadh about terrorism and to listen to Saudi views about the region's future. Here, oil and power politics rather than the promotion of democracy seem to be at work.

Interest in the Topic:

An evaluation of the relative importance of democracy promotion, power politics, and oil in shaping American foreign policy towards three key Middle Eastern states since 9/11 is interesting for two primary reasons. First, as an academic, scholarly, and intellectual exercise, such a study provides a real case opportunity to explore comparative politics at work. Scholars have stated that studies of this type permit political scientists to test hypotheses which in turn allow the development of either new theories of international relations or new explanations of such relationships (Sodaro 31).

The logic of hypothesis testing is essential to political science. Generalizations provide the underlying rationale for important decisions that political leaders make and for the way that people behave within their respective political systems. Policies are not formed in a vacuum. They are responses to actual situations or events and have consequences that are inevitably far-reaching. The "why" of policy formulation is as significant in many cases as the "what" of the policies themselves.

The second primary reason as to why the present study is interesting speaks to the changing geopolitical environment. Samuel Huntington proposed that a clash of civilizations based on cultural antitheses has become inevitable. If this is the case and one can argue that Islamic terrorism and the events of 9/11 support such a thesis then it becomes necessary to explore the sources of such clashes as a preliminary to developing effective responses to conflict.

Huntington argued that in the emerging geopolitical environment the West's belief in the universality of Western culture must be reexamined and the United States should concentrate on solidifying its unity with its European allies while encouraging international acceptance of cultural diversity and promoting commonalities among the world's great civilizations. By exploring the three variables addressed here in the context of three cases it becomes possible to identify the degree to which American foreign policy has the potential to eliminate or reduce fault lines and restrain clashes between Islam and the West.

Significance of the Topic:

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has become a dominant if not always the dominant player in international affairs (Barber 295). During the Cold War, American foreign policy largely consisted of efforts aimed at the containment of Soviet ambitions (Gaddis, Sodaro). As a foreign policy, containment sought to limit the sphere of influence enjoyed by the Soviet Union.

American military and financial aid was given to those countries either naturally allied with the United States or who were vulnerable to Soviet influence (Papp 158). This created a number of strange political alliances. At times, the United States found itself allied with dictatorships, repressive regimes, monarchies, and anti-democratic governments. At one time in the not so distant past, the United States provided support to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States filled a power vacuum and the bipolar world disappeared almost overnight (Huntington 156). Many states that were once dominated by or dependent on the Soviet Union found it necessary to develop new relationships with the West. In some instances the Balkans and the former republics of the Soviet Union civil war broke out. Struggles for power in Africa emerged and even before the Soviet Union collapsed, revolution in Iran and ongoing conflict between the Arab world and Israel challenged America's policies. Many of these flashpoints or fault lines continue to exist (Huntington 158).

This has all combined to create both opportunities and challenges for the United States as it struggles to redefine its national mission and to come to terms with new governments and new economic powers such as those in Asia. Financial crises in Asia and Latin America, famine in Africa, and the forces of globalization are also representative of challenges and opportunities (Sodaro). Developing and maintaining a consistent approach to global and regional policy has occupied the attention of U.S. presidents for decades.

The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 changed many variables in the world (Asner & Hall 64). Where militant Islam had previously claimed responsibility for the first World Trade Center bombing in New York City and countless other terrorist attacks against American property and interests worldwide, 9/11 definitively revealed that America was as vulnerable to terrorism as any other country in the world. President George W. Bush took the position that it was imperative for the United States to enter into a War on Terror that would ultimately necessitate a direct attack on Iraq and the removal of the regime of Saddam Hussein from power (O'Sullivan 4).

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Bush Doctrine or America's continued involvement in Iraq is perhaps less essential than one might think. What is clearly significant is that the United States is now actively engaged in geopolitical affairs and is faced with the importance of developing a foreign policy that addresses national security issues that may be unseen.

As Jervis has pointed out, the normative formation of American foreign policy today is explicated in the Bush Doctrine which calls for the extension of democracy and is based on the implicit belief that democracy can take hold when the artificial obstacles to it are removed. More democracies are equated with greater stability, peaceful relations with neighbors, and less terrorism. Consistent with liberalism, this perspective is highly optimistic in seeing the possibility of progress. At the same time, America is highly dependent upon oil and that oil production capacity of Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia is vital to America and the West. These factors are therefore worthy of exploration in a comparative case analysis.

The American Understanding of Democracy:

Key to this paper is the American definition of democracy. The essential idea of democracy as understood in the United States is that the people have a right to determine who governs them. In most cases, representation through elections is seen as essential to a democratic system. Also essential is the right of the people or the electorate to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. Democracies impose legal limits on the authority of government by guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms to their citizens (Sodaro 2). Additionally, democracy is linked completely in the American ethos to civil society and civic culture. It pervades all aspects of the social contract and emerges from that contract (Sodaro 2).

America sees democracy as possessing four faces:

• Popular sovereignty or the right of the people to govern themselves

• Rights and liberties guaranteed by law to the citizenry which cannot be taken away by the government

• The core democratic values of tolerance, fairness, justice, and compromise

• Economic equality of opportunity (Sodaro, 2004).

Included in this concept are such principles as the rule of law, equality, and inclusion with the final principle meaning that democratic rights and freedoms must be guaranteed to all citizens and not denied to specifically targeted elements of the population such as minority groups or women.

With this definition in mind, democratization from the American perspective refers to the transition from nondemocratic to democratic forms of government. It further refers to the process of building a democracy following the collapse of a nondemocratic regime. Sodaro identifies 10 conditions that are often understood as essential for the creation and maintenance of a democracy but notes that these factors cannot guarantee that a democracy will develop or that it will survive over the long run.

These conditions are state institutions, elites committed to democracy, a relatively homogenous society, some source and level of national wealth, the promotion of private enterprise, a strong middle class, support for the disadvantaged, citizen participation in civil society, education and freedom of information, and a favorable international environment providing support for the state.

However, as America has learned, a homogenous society is not a de facto necessity in a democratic country. America has struggled to extend the rights and freedoms of citizenship to its own growing minority population (Sodaro 130). The evidence from political science studies suggests that homogeneity is not invariably a condition which must exist for the creation of a democratic state. However, Sodaro does maintain that in heterogeneous societies extending power and inclusion to minority groups can be difficult at best. Inhibiting democratization in some sectors or countries of the world is this very factor.

Returning to the Bush Doctrine, Jervis states that democracy is emphasized: "the great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise"(Jervis 365). America does not see democracy as something unique to its social contract, but does believe as evident in the Bush Doctrine that the values of a democratic government are universal and that their spread will benefit the entire world.

John Gaddis sees democratization as sitting firmly at the heart of the Bush Doctrine and as its most important element (Gaddis 79). Jervis maintains that the Bush administration's argument is that strong measures to spread democracy are needed and will be efficient. Liberating Iraq will not only produce a hopefully sustainable democracy, but will ultimately encourage democracy in the rest of the Middle East. Such a view asserts that there is no inherent incompatibility between Islam or any other culture and democracy. Political pluralism in one Middle Eastern country will be emulated in others if this theory is correct.

America also understands democracy as based on representative government, law, and constitutionalism (Jervis, 2003). Theoretically, the American model does not accept an authoritarian monarchy as the basis for democratic rule. It does recognize, however, that a constitutional monarchy can also be a democratic state as is the case with Great Britain. As will be demonstrated in this paper, neither the kingdom of Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait are constitutional monarchies in the British model. However, this does not necessarily mean that Kuwait's version of consultative democracy is not viable or acceptable.

In conclusion, as the United States continues to pursue in its course of foreign policy as it pertains to the Middle East, the understanding of the issue at hand is imperative. As the United States continues to dominate the international political economy democratization of other countries has proven to help in its self interests.

As states earlier, individuals behave in politics on the basis of self-interest, seeking to increase their expected gains and reduce their expected losses or risks on the basis of personal preferences and priorities. The policy decision to rebuild Iraq and to further Middle Eastern relationships, fall in the spectrum of rational realist decision making. Even though there is great debate throughout this topic, the need for oil triumphs over many other decisions due to it ever increasing importance to maintaining the American Hegemony.

References

• Asner, E. & Hall, B. (2004). Needed: A new and better Strategy for the War on Terror. The Humanist, 64(4),5-7.

• Barber, Benjamin R. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkley: Univerity of California Berkley P, 1984. 1-313.

• Bahgat, Gawdat. "Oil and Militant Islam: Strains on U.S.-Saudi Relations." Highbeam Encyclopedia. 1 Jan. 2003. World Affairs. 2 Apr. 2008 <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-97484234.html>

• "Birth of a Bush Doctrine." The Economist 366 (2003): 28-29. Ebsco Host. University of Arizona, Tucson. 4 Apr. 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.library.arizona.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=3&sid=c4c9bc51-30f1-4458-baa0-b12f4f8b4113%40sessionmgr9>.

• Dahl, R. (1999). On Democracy. New Haven,1999. Ct.: Yale University Press.

• Davis, Douglous. "Geoolitics." Class. University of Arizona, Tucson. 5 Mar. 2008.

• Gaddis, J.L. Grand Strategy in the Second Term. Fall 2005 Foreign Affairs, 84(1), 2-4+.

• Jervis, Robert, comp. Understanding the Bush Doctrine. Fall 2003. Political Science Quarterly 18(3). 1 Apr. 2008 <http://web65.rollins.edu/~ebouris/jervis,%20r.pdf>.Kuwait is U.S. key partner in combating terrorism. (2004).

• Morrow, James D. Morrow, J.D. (1994). Game Theory for Political Scientists. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1994. 1-365.

• Novak, Brandon. "Night Turns to Day. America in the Middle East." Economist. May 2005. 1 Apr. 2008 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5037/is_200502/ai_n18257478>.

• O'Sullivan, E. (2005). Bush's Middle East mission gets tougher; after early ground for optimist following the re-election of George Bush, the US new look regional policy is running into old realities. Middle East Economic Digest, 49(30), 48.

• Rethinking the Axis of Evil: Energy policy. (2005). The Economist, 375(8424), 26+.

• Rosen, Gary. "Bush and the Realists." Journal of International Relations and Development 2 (2006): 1-120. 3 Apr. 2008 <http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/index.html>. 120(2), 31-37.

• Sodaro, M.J. (2004). Comparative Politics. New York: McGraw Hill. (1-132)

• Wittkopf, Eugene R., Charles W. Kegley, and James M. Scott. American Foreign Policy. 6th ed. Belmont: Thompson Wadsworth, 2003. 1-634.

All of the essays in the free essays section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essay help, then have a look at our essay writing services.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: