Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Comparative Analysis of US Foreign Polic

    Uploaded by

    Nadeem Nk
    1. The document analyzes differences in foreign policy approaches between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US based on the policies of presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. 2. It finds that while both parties aim to maintain American global leadership, Republicans favor more determined decisions including military intervention, while Democrats prefer diplomacy first and see military action only as a last resort. 3. Key differences discussed include Bush Sr. using troops in Panama and the Gulf War, while Clinton relied on diplomacy and bombings in Yugoslavia; and Bush Jr. invading Afghanistan and Iraq, versus Obama ending wars and using limited airstrikes in Libya and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Comparative Analysis of US Foreign Polic

    Uploaded by

    Nadeem Nk
    30 views3 pages
    1. The document analyzes differences in foreign policy approaches between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US based on the policies of presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. 2. It finds that while both parties aim to maintain American global leadership, Republicans favor more determined decisions including military intervention, while Democrats prefer diplomacy first and see military action only as a last resort. 3. Key differences discussed include Bush Sr. using troops in Panama and the Gulf War, while Clinton relied on diplomacy and bombings in Yugoslavia; and Bush Jr. invading Afghanistan and Iraq, versus Obama ending wars and using limited airstrikes in Libya and

    Original Title

    Comparative_analysis_of_US_foreign_polic.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The document analyzes differences in foreign policy approaches between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US based on the policies of presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. 2. It finds that while both parties aim to maintain American global leadership, Republicans favor more determined decisions including military intervention, while Democrats prefer diplomacy first and see military action only as a last resort. 3. Key differences discussed include Bush Sr. using troops in Panama and the Gulf War, while Clinton relied on diplomacy and bombings in Yugoslavia; and Bush Jr. invading Afghanistan and Iraq, versus Obama ending wars and using limited airstrikes in Libya and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views3 pages

    Comparative Analysis of US Foreign Polic

    Uploaded by

    Nadeem Nk
    1. The document analyzes differences in foreign policy approaches between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US based on the policies of presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. 2. It finds that while both parties aim to maintain American global leadership, Republicans favor more determined decisions including military intervention, while Democrats prefer diplomacy first and see military action only as a last resort. 3. Key differences discussed include Bush Sr. using troops in Panama and the Gulf War, while Clinton relied on diplomacy and bombings in Yugoslavia; and Bush Jr. invading Afghanistan and Iraq, versus Obama ending wars and using limited airstrikes in Libya and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Tuhtasunov Ikromjon

    Comparative analysis of US foreign policy in relation to its two political


    parties: The Democratic Party and Republican Party.

    The United States foreign policy has a single priority: American leadership in
    global politics. Although this strategy has not changed for decades, albeit different
    presidents, and juxtaposed Republican or Democratic Congress, further research reveals
    that there appear methodological differences between two parties in their approach to
    realize this very priority.

    These differences are much evident after the collapse of the bipolar system as
    the USA was choosing which way it would go. For this reason, analyzing four presidents’
    foreign policy conducts: George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack
    Obama, would be enough to come to an overall conclusion.

    Although the Soviet Union hadn’t already collapsed when George H. Bush
    became the US president, US was already claiming for a global leadership, claiming the
    success of its system. Bush, the senior, who intended to bring traditional American values
    and determination in his presidency, acted with conservatism and pragmatism

    1. China: In June, China conducted oppressive actions against its peaceful


    protestors. Bush didn’t hurry to punish Chinese government, instead was only limited to
    sanctions and sent diplomatic mission to try to fix the problem. He didn’t want to harm
    relations with China
    2. Panama: In December, 1989, Bush sent 10,000 troops to Panama to take
    over Manuel Noriega’s regime. Noriega was already military opposition to the
    government and US feared Panama would become anti-American if he took the power
    3. Persian Gulf War: After Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in
    1990, US and other states including the Soviet Union used all the diplomatic ways to
    convince Saddam for the withdrawal. Bush used his personal contacts to do so. However,
    all the efforts didn’t give expected results. In 1991, US started a large-scale military
    operation called “Operation Desert Storm” with 420,000 forces against Iraqi. US
    militants acted quickly and brought Iraq back to its place. Bush chose to keep Saddam in
    power as he thought removing him from power would destabilize the region.
    4. Somalia: US sent its troops to help fix the humanitarian crisis. The
    operation was successful, albeit with some military loss. In this regard, Bush used troops
    in Somalia where there weren’t vital US interests
    5. New world Order: Bush used this term after his success in Persian war.
    This term basically meant the world secured by strong coalitions under American
    leadership.
    As a small conclusion, Republican president’s foreign policy is based on
    conservatism, aimed at spreading American values overseas. It involved diplomatic
    means, though in times when vital American interests are at harm, large-scale military
    operations, typical of traditional American involvement in world affairs. (No opposition
    came from Democrats in Congress during large-scale military operations) .

    The Democratic President Bill Clinton’s foreign policy strategy intended to


    spread democratic and open-market values internationally.

    1. The doctrine of Enlargement: Spreading democracy, free trade and


    multilateral peacekeeping efforts. Clinton believed US should keep its leadership to
    impose these values. The successes: Russia was persuaded to withdraw its troops from
    Estonia and Latvia in 1994. NAFTA was created in 1994, with the agreement passed by
    the Congress in 1993. General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was also revised.
    2. Yugoslavia: Clinton wasn’t quick to deploy military in Balkans until Serbs
    attacks on Bosnian civilians. As diplomacy didn’t work, US waged bombings against
    Serbs. The sides (Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Croats came to agreement known as
    Dayton Peace Accords. Clinton placed 20,000 forces for peacekeeping operations. In
    1999, Serbs started military operations to cleanse Albanians from Kosovo. US once again
    conducted bombings and Serbs withdrew from Kosovo. Kosovo gained autonomy. These
    events account for the success story of Clinton’s foreign policy.
    3. Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, Clinton’s administration achieved international
    climate change treaty in Kyoto. Although US was an initiator to this agreement, it never
    ratified it because of the opposition by Republicans in Congress, who claim it decreases
    free market capacity and slows down the economy.
    4. Diplomatic efforts: Clinton’s Democratic Administration held many
    diplomatic negotiations to end Arab-Israeli conflict. However, 1993 and 1995 agreements
    didn’t bring peace to the conflict. Besides, Clinton’s efforts to have an open dialogue
    with Iran also failed.

    The conclusion is that the Democratic President’s foreign policy put the
    emphasis on American soft power and diplomacy to realize main goals of the foreign
    policy. The military option was a last reserve. The decisions were not always taken
    determinedly. It is the weakest point of Clinton’s administration.

    George Bush, the junior, conducted a foreign policy that used each and every
    method to secure American vital interests. The high economic development allowed
    Bush to conduct large-scale military operations overseas. After 9/11, neo-conservative
    Republicans waged a war in Afghanistan. In 2003, US started another war in Iraq. The
    reasons justified the means, meaning that Afghanistan was a hub for terrorists and US
    should take the leadership to dismantle the terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda; Iraqi leader
    possessed WMD and it was a threat for the security of the whole world. As with senior
    Bush, the decisions were taken briskly and the propaganda was in the level of the
    ideology. This allowed Bush to have little, if not zero, opposition from Democrats. The
    main element of Bush era is that if US believed it had vital interests, it deployed any
    means to secure these interests.

    Barack Obama, The Democratic President, conducted a foreign policy that is


    expressed by his own statement: “If I have to park my car where there is no space, I don’t
    park it anywhere possible; I try to find a better option”. Looking at his foreign policy, this
    statement is indeed true. Obama ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming US should
    not engage itself militarily all the time; US should seek better ways.

    The main means of his foreign policy conduct is diplomacy. Whatever the
    crisis it is, first diplomatic talks, and in case of their failure, limited military engagement
    in the form of airstrikes are used. This is the case with Libya and Syria, where large-scale
    military option was replaced with bombings. Obama didn’t wage a war even there was
    evidence that Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his citizens. This shows that
    military intervention is not a good option in the eyes of Democrats.

    In Democratic President’s administration, wars appear in another form as


    proxy wars. The Arab spring is the clear example in this case. No matter whether they
    were effective or not for US, they cost less than military wars.

    Diplomatic talks with Iran are yet to be called “successful”. However, the
    diplomat solution to Iran’s Nuclear Program is surely better option, given today’s Iran’s
    capacity.

    In conclusion, there is one general statement arising from comparing


    Republican and Democratic Presidents’ foreign policy: There is a single aim-to secure
    American leadership globally. However, the means are different. With Republicans,
    determined decisions including the option of military intervention work. Democrats use
    diplomacy first, and the military option as a last resort.

    You might also like