Chapter 6

Overall, American foreign policy strategy in the post-Cold War era has been
characterized by seven key issues:

 Unilateralism vs. multilateralism

 The nature and dynamics of the emerging global era
 Striking a balance between force and diplomacy
 The role of the United Nations
 WMD proliferation
 Threats from non-state actors
 The international economy, energy security, and the global environment

Individually and collectively, they manifest some of the tensions and trade-offs in the
choices to be made about setting priorities among and forming strategies for Power,
Peace, Prosperity, and Principles.

The debate about the US role in this changing world is often cast in terms of
unilateralism versus multilateralism. The contrast is evident when comparing the foreign
policies of the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations. Proponents of unilateralism stress
American unipolarity, the importance of Power, national not international interests, and
the inefficacy of multilateralism, among other things. In contrast, proponents of
multilateralism emphasize the distinction between power and influence, both national and
global interests, and the importance of correcting not rejecting international institutions.
The differences are significant in the relative priority given to Power, Peace, Prosperity,
and Principles as well as in how each is defined and what strategies are optimal for
achieving them.

The current era can be described as a “global” one. Many scholars argue that we now live
in a “post-polar” system structure that is not unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. Regionalism
is strengthening and deepening, not only as a matter of economic relations but also
through regional security institutions. New threats have also emerged that are more
foreboding than in prior eras. Most notably, transnational forces have the ability to
disrupt states, and various threats of mass destruction have emerged.

One of the greatest international dilemmas, in our contemporary era no less than at other
times, is how to balance force and diplomacy. Part of this debate is how much defense
spending is adequate. Another dimension of the debate is over whether fewer dollars
should be spend on defense and more on diplomacy. Various proposals have been made
for putting more emphasis on diplomacy and increasing civilian capacity. With regards to
the use of force, three sets of issues raise questions about the sufficiency of deterrence
and the Powell Doctrine in this new era:
  The ability of these strategies to successfully meet the challenges of humanitarian
intervention and peace operations.
 Concern over whether deterrence will work against terrorists.
 The shift from containment to regime change.

In response to these concerns, President Obama has developed a strategy of engagement

that includes six key elements:

 Build on the strengths of long-standing alliances and friendships.

 Build up newer partnerships and relationships.
 Talk with adversaries.
 Renew peace brokering role.
 Use all the “tools in the toolbox.”
 Work with not around international institutions

The role of the United Nations in this new era has also been debated. Proponents of the
UN argue the organization has unique strengths, including near-global membership,
normative legitimacy, and a large scope of programs. Critics, however, counter each of
these points. Expansion of the Security Council has been one of the most controversial
and complex reform issues. In recent years questions have been raised as to whether the
World War II era structure is outdated, and several proposals have been made to expand
its membership.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses an even greater security challenge
today than in the past. Much of the debate has revolved around whether or not some
proliferation could strengthen peace. Another aspect of the debate centers on
counterproliferation strategies, most notably national missile defense. Many attempts at
non-proliferation and other WMD control measures, such as the NPT, CTBT, and BW
have been met with some, but limited, success.

Still, attention regarding security threats from non-state actors focuses on terrorism and
terrorists. However, there are other security threats posed by non-state actors. Piracy has
been a key issue, especially off the coasts of Somalia. Drug rings are an international
phenomenon, affecting Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Global crime syndicates
have been empowered by many of the negative aspects of globalization.

The international economy, energy security, and the global environment are also
prominent issues in the current era. The current deepening international economic crisis is
a strategic not just economic issue. The sky rocketing of oil prices brought energy
security to the forefront of American foreign policy. Energy security, however, is not the
same as “energy independence” as being independent of foreign suppliers of oil is an
unrealistic goal. Finally, the global environment is a concern for many reasons including
moral and ethical, economic, and security concerns.
Chapter 7

The end of the Cold War put the alignments and dynamics of major-power geopolitics in
flux. Realists, international institutionalists and other theorists and policy intellectuals
present various alternative strategies. US relations with Russia have improved
substantially since the end of the Cold War, but uncertainties remain as to which scenario
– Russia as friend, as great-power competitor, or as adversary – will prevail in the future.
The Obama administration has made a concerted effort to strengthen ties with the nation
and move away from the Bush administration's approach of Russia as a global
competitor.

Relations with China also pose many uncertainties and encompass a wide range of issues
with debate manifesting different assessments of the mix of common and competing
issues. China is without a doubt a rising power, especially economically. American
foreign policy towards China has become increasingly complex over the decades and has
included a wide range of issues from America's one-China policy to Chinese human
rights violations to the large US trade deficit with China.

Relations with Cold War-era allies in Western Europe and Japan remain generally
positive but are going through their own transitions. American relations with Western
Europe were strained by the Iraq war as many European powers were in strong
opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The future of NATO has also been an area of concern
for many European nations. Tensions over trade disputes have emerged between the US
and Japan. Debate has also arisen regarding the amount of influence the US exerts over
Japanese military policy, including concerns over nuclear weapons.

Relations with India, Brazil, and other emerging powers are also experiencing an era of
transition. The US has grown closer to India since the end of the Cold War as US-Indian
relations have come to reflect India's status as an emerging power. US relations with
Brazil, another emerging power, now tend towards a more independent Brazilian foreign
policy, recognizing the increased international status of the nation.

Regional geopolitics show shifts from Cold War patterns as well. The Obama
administration has pledged to make Africa a higher priority, focusing not only on specific
nations, like Somalia, but also on larger problems within the region, such as AIDS.
Overall, America has tried to promote a philosophy of good governance in Africa in the
hopes that democracy and good leaders can help the continent develop. Relations with
Latin America have focused on increasing stability in the region, and the Obama
administration has indicated it will follow a policy of engagement with Cuba. All told,
post-Cold War geopolitics are providing both opportunities and challenges across the 4
P's objectives of Power, Peace, Prosperity, and Principles.

Foreign policy politics in these issue areas has been a mix of continuity with and change
from past patterns. Relations with China continue to bring influential lobbies into play in
ways that provide an instructive case study. The China lobbies have touched on a number
of issues including trade, human rights, and the Taiwan issue. These politics are not just a
matter of the Chinese government and the US government. "K Street" lobbyists and
public relations firms are involved on both sides of these issues.

Chaptet 8

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and then threatened to also invade Saudi
Arabia, a close US ally. America responded with Operations Desert Shield and Desert
Storm. The Persian Gulf War was considered a swift success for American military
forces. Many lessons can be drawn from this conflict:

 The fact that aggression is still a fact of international life.

 There is value to be found in working through the UN.
 The American military victory solidified American power.
 The Powell doctrine was affirmed.

The war, however, also highlighted some limitations and negatives in American foreign
policy, including the limitations of technology in battle and the fact that Saddam Hussein
was left in power.

During the 1990s the Al Qaeda terrorist network emerged and was responsible for a
number of terrorist attacks on the US presence abroad. Though terrorism was viewed as a
problem abroad, it was not until the attacks on 9/11 on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon that terrorism became the central issue in American foreign policy and would
define the second Bush administration's foreign policy.

The war on terrorism and the Iraq war were the Bush administration's most defining
issues. Terrorism was an issue before September 11, 2001, but afterward, it became the
central issue of American foreign policy. The initial war in Afghanistan was met with a
strong international consensus. Militarily, the war showed that American military power
had reached even more dominant levels than demonstrated in Kosovo and the Persian
Gulf wars. Further, a vast new array of technologies was successfully displayed.
However, the war strategy did have shortcomings, including the reliance on local forces
and bureaucratic human error. Most importantly, the initial victory proved inconclusive.

The "Bush doctrine" shifted the use of force from relying on after-the-incident
retaliations to preemptive action. In addition, the administration recognized that no matter
how preponderant American power was, some aspects of the anti-terrorism strategy could
not be achieved without the cooperation of other nations. A global coalition of over 170
countries, though not necessarily supportive of the Bush Doctrine, contributed in some
aspect to the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism, however, is not just about security;
it also claims higher purposes. The Bush administration frequently invoked calls of
American principles, describing states that support terrorism as "evil."

Not all were supportive of the war on terrorism. Critics claim Bush's war was one of
classic single-column accounting. Their criticisms extended further including:

 Accusing the administration of playing into Al Qaeda's hands

 Warning against the dangers of the Bush doctrine
 Violating international law
 Setting a dangerous future precedent
 The administration's use of unilateral policies.

The Iraq war began in March 2003 and was met by international controversy. The war
demonstrated the extraordinary levels American military technology had reached, and the
"Shock and Awe" military strategy seemed successful. However, this initial sense of
victory did not last long. Domestic opponents of the war quickly became critical of the
war's rationale, the results of losing the peace, and the broader ramifications of the war
for American foreign policy. The Obama administration sought to separate from Bush
policies in the Middle East and correct many of these errors.

Other issues remain persistent in the region. The Arab-Israeli conflict has gone through
four major regional wars and progress towards reaching a resolution has been slow. The
Middle East peace process took off in the early 1990s thanks to the transformed regional
context caused by the end of the Cold War and the US-led victory in the Gulf War.
Though the peace process again gained momentum after 2004, that momentum was
halted with the death of Ariel Sharon and the election of Hamas as well as the ensuing
Gaza war. Amid all this tension two things are clear: Israel's core dilemma remains peace
with security and American interests will continue to be significantly affected in the
Middle East.

The war on terrorism and the Iraq war transformed foreign policy politics as well as
foreign policy strategy. The actions of the Bush administration reignited the debate over
national security and civil liberties with issues such as Guantanamo Bay and the debate
over torture. The domestic politics of the Iraq war stressed the tensions between the
president, Congress, and the war powers shared between them. The foreign policy politics
issues raised by September 11 and Iraq have been highly contentious and manifest some
of the toughest recurring debates the American democracy has ever seen.

Chapter 9

The end of the Cold War did not mean the end of war. Whereas much of the Cold War
world had been driven by difference in ideology, the post-Cold War world was driven by
differences in identity. Genocide in the 20th century was very much a reality and not
merely a problem of the past.

Historically, the prevailing view was that preventing genocide was not sufficiently in the
US national interest to warrant the necessary action. However, just the opposite is true:
all of the 4 P's can come into play. Weak action or inaction in the face of humanitarian
crises undermines American credibility and power. The financial costs of remedying
areas hit by humanitarian crises is higher after-the-fact than preventively. Peace is not
possible when genocide is being committed. As for Principles, it is hard to think of a
more compelling purpose than prevention of genocide.

The question of what the driving forces of wars of identity are has been marked by
debate. The primordialist view argues that history is deterministic and conflict will
always happen. In contrast, the purposive view argues that actors pursuing their economic
interests intensify or ameliorate historical ethnic tensions. Evidence largely supports the
purposive view, though we can never know for sure if specific conflicts could have been
prevented.

Questions of humanitarian intervention have led to the debate of state sovereignty and the
balance between the rights conferred on states and the responsibilities expected of them.
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) issued a
report that supported humanitarian intervention when states fail to live up to their
responsibility to protect their citizens. The Iraq war further complicated this debate,
especially given the Bush administration's invocation of humanitarianism as part of its
rationale for going to war. Many argue preventive diplomacy and other preventive
strategies can be extremely effective in preventing ethnic conflict, especially by
addressing the problems that are the roots of violent conflict. However, early preventive
action can be extremely difficult, especially with regards to the use of military force.
Rwanda is an excellent example of this.