Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search


David Miller: Shape Of Foreign Policy Under Bush

Inward America? What Will Shape US Foreign Policy Under the Bush Administration.

Finally it happened. The election saga that has dominated the headlines around the world for the past month came to a close, and after all the legal wrangling, it was announced that George W. Bush was to become the 43rd President of the United States. Even though it began making transition plans before last weeks Supreme Court ruling, the Bush campaign has quickly gotten into its stride in announcing cabinet nominations that will be put forward to Congress for ratification Amidst this manoeuvring attention has become focused on those who will shape American foreign policy under the new Administration and this policy’s form.

One of the criticisms that were levelled at Mr Bush during the presidential campaign was that he was inexperienced and lacked an understanding of matters and issues outside of his own country. The much publicised television debate in which he could not recall the name of Pakistan’s leader became a familiar weapon in the arsenal of his opponents, and this led to calls that foreign policy was Mr Bush’s Achilles Heel. Since Al Gore’s concession speech, nerves are rattling in place such as the United Nations as to what foreign policy steps Mr Bush and his government will put in place.

Therefore it is no surprise to see that the first cabinet appointments have been made have been in this area and the people chosen to fill these posts are very experienced and very close to the incoming president. Retired General Colin Powell is best known as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Due to his role in the Gulf War, General Powell’s popularity remains high and it is a popularity that runs across America’s political spectrum. Incoming National Security Condoleeza Rice served Mr Bush’s father on the National Security Council under his administration and was the foreign policy advisor throughout this year’s election campaign.

While General Powell has stated that the United States will remain committed to the peace process in the Middle East and issues such as Iraq, there is a concern that the US may pull back from overseas military interventions behind a Theatre Missile Defence System or TMD. Ms Rice has already stated the US cannot remain in the role of the world policeman as it has since 1945 and General Powell has indicated that there will be a review of the current US military deployments, such as Bosnia and Kosovo, and that they may become more streamlined. In other words the world should not expect an immediate American deployment to trouble spots in the future unless it is a situation of all out warfare and it is not to be unexpected that current levels of deployment may be scaled down.

This caution on the part of the incoming administration can be traced to the “Powell Doctrine”, a term coined to describe the General’s approach to matters and issues, including his battle campaigns when a serving military commander. Such cautiousness is a trademark of the man who will become Secretary of State, who was hesitant regarding the US involvement in Bosnia and who did not favour the bolstering of American personnel in Somalia when they were deployed there.

Such rhetoric and what could become policy, should not lead people to return to the “isolationist” debate that has remained an element to US foreign policy since before the Second World War. In the true sense of the world, the United States was never isolationist, even in the 1930’s it maintained security interests offshore. It was at that time inward looking but it was viewed to be in isolation, as it remained aloof from European balance of power politics. With Pearl Harbour and the Cold War this policy experienced an inevitable change.

Had there been a conservative administration throughout the 1990’s then the process of a United States becoming more inward looking following the end of the Cold War would likely have happened sooner rather than in the year 2001. The United States was tired after four decades of the superpower standoff and high levels of military deployment and as it showed in the NATO conflict with Yugoslavia in 1998, the United States has become more reluctant to deploy ground forces to a situation that can become intractable, costly in terms of resources and amount in casualties, which can politically damage an administration. Technology has become the United States’ greatest ally in terms of overseas military deployment, and the use of airpower and cruise missiles as a means of coercion and tactics in the theatre of conflict are testament to this.

However the United States did not have a conservative administration throughout much of the 1990’s, and the Clinton White House, like that of the Blair Government in the United Kingdom displayed a willingness to enter into situations, like Kosovo, where intervention was deemed necessary to affect a desired outcome. The new more conservative administration will not be likely to accept this mantle so readily and will be less forthcoming when requested by NATO or the United Nations to contribute to peacekeeping operations.

In the international political environment of the 1990’s and the 21st Century, it appears that a liberal government while they are ill at ease with large militaries and their use seek to solve the world’s problems. A conservative government on the other hand opts for a large, well equipped military they are more reluctant to use it. The world is witnessing this process with the transition of governments now taking place and this has the potential to place US policy at odds with states such as New Zealand and organisations such as the United Nations who place the emphasis on peace-keeping as a means of keeping defence costs down.

What course US foreign policy will take under the Bush Administration will remain to be seen. Whether the United States can become more inward looking will depend on a number of factors and not all of them are in the control of Washington. The international political system is becoming more fluid and uncertain and as states such as China, Japan, Europe and Russia seek to assert their claims and goals on the world stage, it might prove extremely difficult for the US to become removed from this let alone isolate itself.

© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>



Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>


Get More From Scoop

Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news