How September 11 changed American foreign policy: the record a year later (original) (raw)
Related papers
The events of September 11 at first seemed to change the Bush administration's attitude towards multilateralism. But this now appears to have been a temporary shift of emphasis and once again the administration is pursuing an essentially unilateralist foreign policy. This article looks at the impact of September 11 on US foreign policy, focusing specifically on the implications the events have for US power and for the structure of world politics. The article contextualizes US foreign policy by discussing the debates over unipolarity that followed the end of the cold war. It then looks at the interpretations offered by Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington and Benjamin Barber. It then discusses the implications of September 11, before looking at the nature of current US foreign policy, the relative power, both 'soft' and 'hard', of the US and the prospects for future world order. The article concludes that world orders are always in the interests of some and that current unilateralist US policies are unlikely to create a more humane world order and might even be against US long-term interests.
American Foreign Policy and September 11
sam.gov.tr
In a recent book, WRMead refers to the four major schools of thought that have affected the foreign policy making process throughout American history. These schools, Mead argues, have constituted the basic ways of looking at foreign policy until now. 'Hamiltonians' seek a close alliance ...
What did the events of 9/11 tell us about theories of international politics?
If the end of the Cold War marked one of the greatest turning points in the field of international politics of the late twentieth century, September 11 was a reminder that the international order that has come into being as a result was not one that has found definite acceptance and universal recognition in every place on the globe. As the debate about the extent to which September 11 changed global politics continues, this essay seeks to investigate whether, how and to what extent the events of the early twenty-first century really presage fundamental, as opposed to merely epiphenomenal, shift in world politics. What will be argued is that without denying the obvious importance of September 11 and its impact on global public opinion – that world politics displays far more continuity than change. (Kennedy-Pipe & Rengger 2006:540) Certainly, events from September 11 exerted a great shock on millions of people around the world, but rather than heralding a new era in world politics the events were symptomatic of certain key aspects of world politics that should be familiar to all serious students of the field but which, for a variety of reasons seem to have been forgotten in the aftermath of attacks. (Ibid.) In fact, we can only understand the events form September 11 if we understand the history of the cold war. As Layne (2006: 2) noticed, ''after the Soviet collapse, the United State stood head and shoulders above the rest of the world, militarily and economically. The United States, moreover, was imbued with an expansive conception of its world role and its interests.'' This was the moment to exercise strategic restraint by adopting a prudent, far-sighted grand strategy. Indeed, ''by removing the only real check on U.S. power, the Soviet Union's demise presented the United States with the opportunity to use its capabilities to exert more control over - to ''shape'' - the international political system and simultaneously to increase its power.'' (Ibid.) This is a great power trap that almost all great powers fall into. As Layne (2006: 2) clarified, ''when the risks of doing so appear low - and the potential rewards appear high - states with lost of power usually succumb to the temptation to use it. In the years since the cold war the United States has extended its strategic reach because it has had the motive, means, and opportunity to do so.'' This paper will evaluate whether September 11 attacks really changed everything. It seems to reasonable to agree with Layne (2006: 2) that after September 11, as before, geopolitical dominance has been the ambition of the United States, ''If anything, 9/11 gave the Bush II administration's 'hegemonists' a convenient - indeed, almost providential - rationale for implementing policies they would have wanted to pursue in any event, including 'regime change' in Iraq (and possibly Iran); the projection of U.S. power into the Middle East and central Asia; a massive five-year defense build up, which when completed, will result in U.S. military outlays exceeding the combined defense budgets of the rest of the world's states.'' By making wrong policies when at the height of its power, the United States decisionmakers underestimate the possibility that other actors will emerge and balance against U.S. dominance. U.S. hegemony fuelled terrorism against the United States by groups such as al Qaeda. As Layne (2006: 7) noticed, ''In this respect, 9/11 itself is a reminder that U.S. predominance has spawned new, 'asymmetric' responses to U.S. preeminence.'' In short, the Bush II administration has sought security by expanding U.S. power and pursuing hegemony by doing so it has squandered the chance of legitimate global leadership that has been vested by the whole International Society. Whatever is thought about the claim that September 11 irrevocably transformed global politics it cannot be denied, however that for many Americans it was a cataclysmic event. (Kennedy-Pipe 2008:406)
THE IMPACT OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACK IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
In the past, military power was the only decisive factor in the “balance of power” among nations. Its strength ensured their expansion and influence while its weakness precipitated their fall and disintegration. Though, it is still an important element, many other factors like economy, ideology, political stability, statesmanship and diplomacy have played substantial role in determining the status of a country among the comity of nations in this globalized world. The World Order has been more dynamic due to the unprecedented developments in international affairs in the last century-ranging from multipolar, bipolar and unipolar. The US has enjoyed unilateral and unparalleled status in the international affairs. But as history repeats itself, the might of American power is visibly diminishing due to neoconservative and imperialistic policies, and new centers of power are emerging to shape the “multipolar world order”.1 This essay is a study on the effects of the international terrorist organization of the world system. I will focus on how countries changed the security policy together with the effect of the terrorist activities. The 9/11 attacks showed how a small investment by terrorists could cause extraordinary level of damage. Firstly we will focus on how was the world order before the collapse of Soviet Union and 11/9 Attacks. We will see how the international system is changed after the collapse of Soviet Union. I will discuss about ‘New World Order’. In chapter two, we will look at the international system after the attacks. How it changed? What are the new actors of International Relations? What is the important thing for regional powers to become more powerful? Then, in chapter three, we will focus on some scholar’s comments about effect of 9/11 attacks on the international world politics. Chapter four will show us how are the security perceptions changing with 9/11 attacks. Last Chapter will show us the general idea of the essay.
International and Security Studies, 2017
The purpose of this article is to analyze Europe’s Place in U.S. Security Policy at the beginning of the 21st century. The chronological timeframe of the article are the years 2001–2009, i.e. the years of George W. Bush’s presidency, which encompass a number of important events in both U.S. and European security policy. The analysis is designed to answer the following research questions: What place did Europe occupy in U.S. security policy during the reign of President George W. Bush? What was cooperation like between the U.S. and allies in Europe between the years 2001 and 2009? Was Europe an important ally of the Americans? Did Europe influence the White House’s decisions on international security? What impact did the Bush administration have on U.S.-Europe relations?