Mateo Montes

The foreign policies of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush: a comparative analysis. Introduction. Since the end of Second World War, the foreign policy of the United States (US) has been a decisive factor in the world. During the Cold War, the US enjoyed an enormous amount of power as the head of the so called “free world”, and its influence spread all around the globe, only stopping at the “iron curtain” where the soviet influence started. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the last decades of the 20th century, was a pivotal time in history, not only because it marked the end of one of the most divisive conflicts ever but also because it was the first time since the romans, that a great power tasted hegemony. That power would then be tested by an ever-changing geopolitical landscape. As in every great empire, those who harness power are the ones that define the way in which it will be remembered, and only a few men have won the presidency and got to live beyond the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. None of them left unscathed. As circumstances dictated, two of those men happened to be father and son: George H.W. Bush (Bush I) who served as the 41st president of the United States from 1989 to 1993, and his son, George W. Bush (Bush II), who served as the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009. Both came out of the Republican Party, and both held tight the conservative values that come with that badge, nevertheless their presidencies were very different and their legacies are still subject to debate. How do the foreign policies of this father and son duo compare? In which ways they differed? As we shall see, although both presidents were father and son, the way in which they approached foreign affairs was divergent. I. George W. H. Bush: the one term president. When George W.H. Bush came to power, he was already an experienced and well-rounded politician. As a matter of fact, he became president right after serving as vice-president for eight years during the Reagan era. Before that, he already had accumulated political experience in Congress, as director of the CIA and as the first US ambassador to The People’s Republic of China. When he ran for the presidency, the voters saw him as a continuation of Reagan, the man who lifted the US from the post-Vietnam depression. Bush made his mark especially in US foreign policy, as his presidency took place in a changing world that saw the US rise as the only superpower in a new unipolar world. As expected, his foreign policy didn’t differ in essence from that of his predecessors, he had a very pragmatic approach and prioritized the defense of US security interests and the status quo, which he did relying actively and very effectively on multilateralism. One of the biggest achievements of the Bush I era is probably the way in which he dealt with the collapse of the Soviet Union, prioritizing stability, given the extremely unstable situation and the risks that such an important change meant. His relationship with USSR secretary Mikal Gorbachev was very cordial, and he restrained himself of showing any kind of euphoric reaction to “victory”, which helped improve US-Soviet relationship. The German reunification is a prime example of how well he knew his diplomacy, achieving a reunification pact that saw the fragmented country reunify and become a member of NATO, a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, the determining event of his presidency is the participation of the US in the Persian Gulf War. When the regime of Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait for its wealth and oil, the administration had a very rapid response alarmed by the idea of an oil rich Iraqi regime. The US quickly condemned the invasion aligning the international community against the Regime of Saddam Hussein, portrayed as the incarnation of evil. Bush foresaw the possibility of the US leading the world into a “New World Order”, a world of peaceful nations lead by the US, standing against “rogue nations” (like Iraq). The odds of this “new world” seemed high when the United Nations passed a resolution that authorized “to use all necessary means” to end the invasion. A US-led coalition defeated very quickly the Iraqi army, assuring the balance of power in a strategically important region, and affirming US leadership and supremacy in the forming post-cold war world. Nonetheless, Bush also showed that he could also act unilaterally and against old allies, as he did in the beginning of his mandate in Panama. In general, he had a cautious realistic approach to foreign policy, and he acted in consideration of the given circumstances. His actions proved to be essential in the everlasting American quest for the maintenance of a world order based on free trade. In the end, his victories outside the US didn’t reciprocate on internal affairs and an economic recession was enough to make him a one term president. II. George W. Bush: the one in power when the world changed forever. “Like Father, like son” goes the saying, and after a very suspicious and controversial election, George W. Bush became the president of the United States, ending an eight years streak of Democrats in the oval office. His very controversial mandate cemented him as one of the most polarizing figures in US history. Under his administration, the United States adopted a more interventionist and unilateral foreign policy, mainly as a repercussion of the 9/11 terror attacks. After the Gulf War, the United States maintained its military presence in the region. This measure fostered the animosity of local groups. Among them emerged Al Qaeda, a jihadist group created by Osama Bin Laden that became the world’s largest terrorist organization. On September 11th 2001, Al Qaeda successfully perpetrated a series of terrorist attacks on US soil, triggering a brutal response from the US government that prompted the “global war on terror”. For the first time since Pearl Harbor, the American people felt vulnerable at home, so when the Bush administration formed a war cabinet following the attacks and decided to invade Afghanistan; where Osama Bin Laden was hiding; the decision received widespread support from the public and was accepted by the international community. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force against those responsible for 9/11, thus the US started bombing Afghanistan in October. The Islamic regime of the Taliban was quickly overthrown, but Osama Bin Laden manage to escape. The aftermath of this invasion was a prolonged and complicated process (still is), in which the multilateral approach that worked for the US started to deteriorate, giving space to the unilateral approach that characterized Bush’s government. This invasion served as a presentation card for the “Bush Doctrine”, a new way of dealing with international affairs that was heavily influenced by a political movement advocating for a more interventionist and violent approach to foreign politics known as “neoconservatism”. Bush foreign policy envisaged a menacing future for the US, thus he considered that unilateral action was necessary to defend the country. Consumed by the perception that the whole world was a threat, his national security strategy relied in an obligation to “spread liberal democracy and freedom” around the globe, in the name of homeland security. He achieved what his father couldn’t and created the perception of a new external enemy, this time presented as “the Axis of Evil” consisting of Iraq, Iran and North Corea. For the sake of ensuring the country security, the US would act alone, if necessary, and would not hesitate to launch a preemptive war. Following this doctrine came the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the second scenery of the “War against Terror”. The Gulf War was an unfinished business for some members of Bush’s cabinet. Not ending Saddam’s regime in 1991 was perceived as a mistake, and as cynic as it may sound, 9/11 opened a political opportunity. The invasion went fast, and Saddam’s regime fell quickly, nevertheless, the instability that the prolonged American presence unleashed in the area, the reports speaking of torture as methods of interrogation, in addition to the increase of surveillances techniques by the intelligence community (legalized by the Patriot Act), took a heavy toll on the popularity of the United States. The invasion was heavily criticized by its allies, especially because the US failed to prove the argument that there was “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. The US acted unilaterally and, in the process, violated international law breaking the post-cold war spirit of interstate collaboration. War is often a vicious circle, and the war on terror only furthered the expansion and development of terrorist groups, all this at a high human and economic cost. George W. Bush initiated the retreat of troops from Iraq, but he wasn’t in office when it concluded despite serving two terms. The pinnacle of his popularity was when the US was at its worst emotionally, he rallied the people behind an insubstantial cause that relied heavily on the ideal of the US as the world’s police. He left office whit his approval rating at rock bottom, after the “sub primes” crisis which gave rise to the questioning idea that perhaps the end of the Cold War didn’t mean “the end history”. Conclusion: The Bush family is a political dynasty that has had an immense influence in today’s world. Both, father and son, took office in moments of major geopolitical changes, both acted upon the ruling disposition of maintaining the hegemony of the United States, yet, their presidencies are remembered very differently. Bush father would always be remembered by his laureated foreign policy, and Bush son by his extremely controversial way of approaching external affairs. The first, was as pragmatic as he was prudent, his experience helped him read the political conjuncture, and so, he adopted a multilateral approach as the situation demanded. The second faced an unprecedented political landscape in an increasingly fast-paced world, and his politics were a reaction to those who opposed and attacked the ideals the United States pretends to represent. Nonetheless, even if their foreign policies where almost opposed, the goal they were after has remained the same since the United States became the head of the “western world” following Second World War: the maintenance of the status quo.