Bush's Foreign Policy Research Articles

From Realism to Liberalism

This article examines international relations rhetoric rather than foreign policy practice. Between the time of his acceptance of the Republican presidential nomination in August 2000 and his reelection in November 2004, George W. Bush changed his rhetorical focus from "realist" to "liberal internationalist" in an effort to sell his foreign policy agenda. This shift is identified through an analysis of nine presidential speeches and one excerpt from a book Bush wrote prior to becoming president. By exploring Bush's foreign policy pronouncements, the article reveals shifting patterns of presidential rhetoric and demonstates the importance of studying presidential rhetoric in international relations theory.

Manifest destiny, American exceptionalism, and the city on a hill seen through Winthrop, O'Sullivan, and Bush: Opportunities for religious peacebuilding

AbstractA dominant theme in the story of the American, city‐on‐a‐hill experience is manifest destiny, a term literally expressing a sense of a rightful, westward expansion across the continent in the late 19th century, but more broadly expressing a general entitlement granted, it is often understood, divinely to an exceptional United States of America. The origins, the political‐versus‐religious undergirding, and the implications of manifest destiny are widely discussed in the literature. Here I focus on three primary texts by John Winthrop, John O'Sullivan, and George W. Bush to argue that, even though Winthrop's and his fellow Puritan immigrants' understanding of their role in the new land was a far cry from that of O'Sullivan—who coined the term “manifest destiny” – the seeds of manifest destiny were brought with these first immigrants to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, later sprouting and blossoming in O'Sullivan's coining, and eventually bearing some of its many fruits Bush's foreign policy. Finally, I will discuss the sociological and other implications of the divine endorsement of such ideas.

Doctrinal foundation of G. W. Bush foreign policy

Doctrinal foundation of G. W. Bush foreign policy

Doctrinal foundation of G. W. Bush foreign policy

Doctrinal foundation of G. W. Bush foreign policy

George H.W. Bush: Conservative Realist as President

This article explores George H.W. Bush's foreign policy in order to examine what it can tell us about the successes and weaknesses of conservative internationalism as a world view and as an analytic construct for scholars of international relations. First, to what extent, if any, did the Bush administration's foreign policy reflect the course and logic of conservative internationalism? Second, what can the Bush administration's foreign policy tell us about the utility of conservative internationalism as a foreign policy approach relative to alternative approaches?

The Case for Reassessing America's 43rd President

Contemporary judgments of George W. Bush's foreign policy were often quite harsh and polemical. In this article, we argue that a moderate form of Bush revisionism is likely to emerge in the coming years, as scholars take a more dispassionate look at his achievements in global affairs and the difficult circumstances under which his administration labored. We offer the six most persuasive arguments in favor of Bush revisionism; we then discuss the most reasonable critiques of these arguments. The overall thrust of this essay is not that Bush will someday be seen as one of America's most successful statesmen, but simply that his reputation should improve as partisan passions fade and new evidence is considered.

GEORGE W. BUSH, RELIGION, AND FOREIGN POLICY: PERSONAL, GLOBAL, AND DOMESTIC CONTEXTS

In public discourse on international affairs, George W. Bush often utilized religious imagery in his rhetoric. But the role of religion in shaping foreign policy during the Bush administration was dynamic, contentious, and varied. Bush experienced a religious transformation in the 1980s, and his faith convictions played an important role in garnering support of evangelicals during campaigns, and to a lesser extent in shaping his policy positions. Bush's interaction with faith in the international sphere helped frame US engagement both with Muslim-majority countries after 9/11 and with the increasingly religious developing world. Domestically, the strongest religious influences on Bush's foreign policy occurred when multiple religious groups joined together in advocacy coalitions.

US Foreign Policy and Human Rights: Situating Obama

Three approaches to human rights in US foreign policy serve as benchmarks for a general understanding of the subject from a historical perspective. The first is Enlightenment cosmopolitanism, or classical liberalism, featuring a consistent commitment to the international law of human rights and humanitarian affairs. The second is Providential nationalism, or belief in a Divinely blessed Manifest Destiny. The third is structural realism as represented in modern times by Henry Kissinger. This article examines a fourth approach that will be termed muddling through, or inconsistency regarding human rights in foreign policy, practiced by not only the Obama administration from the start, but at the end of the day by all administrations. There remain particular differences among administrations, and while the Obama record has shown a certain continuity with Bush's foreign policy, some differences are evident.

South America, the Bush Foreign Policy and the Future of American Hegemony

Conferencia dictada por el Dr. John E. Rielly, en el Instituto de Estudios Internacionales, Universidad de Chile, el 15 de julio de 2005.

South America, the Bush foreign policy and the future of American hegemony

Conferencia dictada por el Dr. John E. Rielly, en el Instituto de Estudios Internacionales, Universidad de Chile, el 15 de julio de 2005.

The ideological roots of failure: the application of kinetic neo-liberalism to Iraq

This article argues that American policy towards Iraq went through four major shifts between the invasion in 2003 and the announcement of the surge in 2007. The best way to understand the Bush administration's evolving policy towards Iraq is by examining the ideological parameters within which it was made. The article assesses various approaches to understanding the relationship between ideology, policy making and foreign policy, concluding that ideology shapes the paradigm and analytical categories within which foreign policy is made. A major change in foreign policy originates either from the decision-maker consciously recognizing and attempting to rework the ideational parameters within which policy is made or in reaction to ‘discrepant information’ or ‘anomalies’ that destabilize the paradigm and its analytical categories. The article goes on to examine the extent to which both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism shaped George W. Bush's foreign policy. It identifies a series of major analytical categories that originate from within these two doctrines and shaped policy towards Iraq. The article argues that the four major shifts in Bush's policy towards Iraq were forced upon the administration by the rising tide of politically motivated violence. Ultimately this violence forced Bush to abandon the major analytical categories that, up to 2007, had given his policy coherence. In order to extricate his administration from the quagmire that Iraq had become by 2006, Bush totally transformed his approach, dropping the previously dominant neo-liberal paradigm and adopting a counter-insurgency doctrine.

Review: The Crisis of American Foreign Policy

THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Wilsonianism in the Twenty-first Century G. John Ikenberry, Thomas J. Knock, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Tony Smith Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. 157PP, US$24.95 cloth ISBN 978-0-691-1396-2Speaking before the United Nations general assembly on 22 September 2009, American President Barack Obama recognized that he took office a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this, he said, due to opposition to and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti- Americanism. Determined to change those specific policies, Obama has pledged to open a new era of multilateral cooperation. In fact, he stressed that we've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.. .and we address our priorities here, in this institution - for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow. Moreover, given the contested attempt to export to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East more broadly, Obama adamantly affirmed that democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. The contrast with George W Bush's administration is obvious. Obama differs with Bush not only in his approach to the management of international issues, preferring multilateralism over his predecessor's unilateralism. He also advances an alternative vision of American internationalism. Whereas Bush espoused what might be called imperial internationalism, Obama champions internationalism.The book under review is a formidable contribution to the understanding of the differences between these two internationalisms. It tackles a crucial question: was Bush's foreign policy consistent with the main features of the Wilsonian tradition or was it a deviation from it? If the answer is the former, then the bloody failure of Bush's foreign policy implies the demise of the liberal internationalism that Woodrow Wilson elaborated and practiced during the difficult years of the First World War and its immediate aftermath. If the latter, Bush's failure not only leaves Wilsonianism unscathed, but also creates an opportunity for its revival. The debate is not academic in nature at all. As Thomas J. Knock argues in his informative chapter, Wilson may be considered the founder of American internationalism. Wilson's predecessors had brought America to the world stage, but Wilson aimed radically to transform the basic institutional structure of the international system. Notwithstanding the domestic debacle over the League of Nations, his legacy inspired Franklin Roosevelt's proposal to create a multilateral international system after the Second World War. That system was a departure from the centuries-long tradition of great power politics, whose survival depended on the maintenance of the balance of power. When that balance tipped in one direction or another, war was the inevitable result.After 1945, thanks to American leadership, the balance of power system was superseded by a new rules-based international system centred on the UN. Although the Cold War froze the potential of the UN system to constitutionalize relations between states, the end of the Cold War offered an extraordinary opportunity to expand the Wilsonian system to encompass the entire world, not just the west. However, 9/11 and George W. Bush's administration radically changed the American approach. As G. John Ikenberry explains, Bush's international vision, as defined in the national security strategy of September 2002, was grounded in American exceptionalism. One of its core ideas was that it was up to America, not multilateral institutions, to make the world safe for democracy. In Bush's view, the multilateral system was either outdated or of secondary importance, and constrained the US's capacity to guarantee its own security and that of its allies. …

The legacy of George W. Bush's foreign policy: moving beyond neoconservatism

* 1. Introduction: Controversial Policy and Uncertain Future, 2001-2009 * 2. The Challenge to America and the World * 3. The Neoconservative Revolution: The Ideological Infrastructure of the Bush Doctrine * 4. The Personality of George W. Bush * 5. The Decision-Making Process: Past and Future * 6. Lessons for Future Presidents: America and the World Beyond Neoconservatism

Japan debates the Korean peninsula: implications for future policy and U.S.–Japan relations

Abstract Japan's debate about South and North Korea grew livelier in 2007–2008. As the strategic environment changed, right-wing opposition to Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda's supposed “Asianism” and center/left renewed hope for regional reconciliation produced a sharp exchange centering on the Korean peninsula, in which the U.S. figured importantly. Anxieties about national identity deeply rooted in history were compounded by the triple shock of the U.S. delisting the North as a terror-sponsoring state, the U.S.-caused global financial crisis, and Barack Obama's election victory. Troubled by George W. Bush's second-term foreign policy shifts, many Japanese people were unprepared for a new president more sympathetic to multilateralism. On North Korea, conservatives warned that U.S. policy was isolating Japan, but instead of refocusing on broad national interests, they pointed to the abductions issue as justification for a more independent foreign policy. On South Korea they welcomed the election of Lee Myung...

Is the Bush Revolution over?

Several observers have argued that the radical transformation of American foreign policy wrought by George W. Bush is already over. They argue that the ‘Bush Revolution’ was merely a result of the short-term conjuncture of neoconservative influence and the impact of September 11, 2001, and that this temporary deviation has been ended by the American failure in Iraq. Yet the causes of the Bush Revolution are more fundamental and long-term than this argument implies. It is in the combination of the shift to a militarily unipolar international system and the dominance of the Republican Party by its conservative wing that the real roots of the Bush foreign policy lie, and neither condition is likely to alter in the foreseeable future. Moreover, although the Iraq War has led to some shifts in policy, the Republicans' selection of John McCain as their presidential candidate confirms the continued vitality of the Bush Revolution.

Second-term blues: how George W. Bush has governed

American presidents typically spend much of their first term trying to ensure a second term. Yet those four more years! are usually disappointing, replete with scandal, squabbling, plummeting approval, and few accomplishments. Thus far, George W. Bush's second term has largely followed that unfortunate pattern. In Second-Term Blues , John Fortier and Norman Ornstein lead a stellar cast of political analysts illuminating the priorities, governing tendencies, and leadership style of a president trying to steady his ship in rocky seas. While the media obsess over who will be elected, they rarely ask how a candidate would govern if elected. For example, how would the president approach other political institutions? Would foreign policy stress caution and coordination, or will the U.S. go it alone? What would be the tone of public persona and rhetoric? This is the first in-depth analysis of Bush's second go-round from that perspective. The contributors include some of the shrewdest and best known observers of U.S. politics. David Sanger ( New York Times ) reveals how Bush's foreign policy, particularly on Iraq, defines and restricts his presidency. Dan Balz ( Washington Post ) dissects America's changing political mood and considers how the president's personal style fits into that milieu. Charles O. Jones, former president of the American Political Science Association, defines Bush's executive style: Seemingly, where narrow-margin politics appears to call for sensitive mastery of Congress, President Bush employs an unrelenting executive style, among the most intense ever. In addition, Carla Robbins of the New York Times and Fred Greenstein of Princeton University make insightful contributions. This important book considers how all of this helps explain what we've seen coming out of Washington since 2001 and what it may portend for the future.

Strategies of dominance: the misdirection of U.S. foreign policy

In a critical overview of U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, P. Edward Haley draws surprising connections between key elements of George W. Bush's foreign policy and those of his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Haley further shows how these elements in both cases produced disastrous results, and he proposes an alternative that is constructive and tolerant but not amorally realistic. Specifically, Strategies of Dominance faults reliance on American exceptionalism, treatment of globalization and global democratization as vital to security, a misreading of American primacy, expectation of bandwagoning by allies, and reliance on economic sanctions and coercive diplomacy. Haley argues that these characteristics have replaced a more tolerant Cold War-era program in which such attitudes were tempered by recognition of a bipolar world, a nuclear standoff, and a global zero-sum competition for allies and influence. This is the only book covering the foreign policies of all three post-Cold War presidents-George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George W. Bush. And although a number of books have criticized the foreign policy of George W. Bush, no other shows how its post-Cold War underpinnings are shared with Clinton's and to a more limited degree with those of his father.

U.S. Human Rights Policy in the Post-Cold War Era

Political Science QuarterlyVolume 121, Issue 2 p. 269-294 U.S. Human Rights Policy in the Post-Cold War Era JOHN W. DIETRICH, JOHN W. DIETRICH JOHN W. DIETRICH is a professor of political science at Bryant University. He has published The George W. Bush Foreign Policy Reader: Presidential Speeches with Commentary. This article is part of a larger project examining recent U.S. human rights policy.Search for more papers by this author JOHN W. DIETRICH, JOHN W. DIETRICH JOHN W. DIETRICH is a professor of political science at Bryant University. He has published The George W. Bush Foreign Policy Reader: Presidential Speeches with Commentary. This article is part of a larger project examining recent U.S. human rights policy.Search for more papers by this author First published: 15 February 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2006.tb00572.xCitations: 5 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume121, Issue2Summer 2006Pages 269-294 RelatedInformation

EVANGELICAL ELITES AND FAITH-BASED FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Values-based concerns motivated evangelicals during President Bush's first term to advance a “faith-based” foreign policy agenda, producing similar mixed results as their domestic priorities. Evangelicals reject isolationism in favor of a global butoften unilateralist foreign policy motivated by theological convictions and aided byincreasing strategic sophistication. However, evangelical elites are not monolithic in their understanding of international affairs, which fosters debate but also hinders greater influence. Evangelicals could have greater influence over Bush's foreign policy agenda if they present a united, coherent perspective backed by mass mobilization. In order to do this, evangelicals need to reflect theologically on global politics and to overcome the idea that politics is only local.

Hegemony and Its Discontents: A Symposium1

As we released our call for papers in March 2003 for the next International Studies Association (ISA) conference, the United Nations (UN) had failed to reach a consensus about what to do about Iraq's defiance and their refusal to submit to UN demands for inspections of suspected weapons development facilities. The United States had begun its war with support from the United Kingdom, Australia, and a number of smaller countries. The initial phase of the war that toppled the government of Saddam Hussein lasted only three weeks. The world was introduced to the awesome military power of the United States; they also saw how the Bush Administration would extend its war on terrorism that began with the invasion of Afghanistan. Moreover, the world witnessed the operational side of the previously articulated Bush Doctrine (see, for example, Nye 2002; Pollack 2002; Kaplan and Kristol 2003; Clarke 2004; Gordon and Shapiro 2004). The Bush revolution in foreign policy as described by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay (2003:13–14) was based on two critical assumptions. First, in this dangerous world the only way to protect the United States and to secure its national interests is to “shed constraints imposed by alliances, international law and international regimes.” After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the hegemonists took full control of the Bush foreign policy. Second, these critical decision makers saw the United States as an exceptional nation, the sole superpower, with the responsibility to use its power to serve US interests and thereby make the world more free, prosperous, and eventually peaceful by ridding it of all things evil (see Frum and Perle 2003; Halper and Clarke 2004; Krauthammer 2004). Under Bush, the United States was ready and willing to assume the mantle of leadership and was …