Geum.ru

Issn 1857-1336 universitatea de stat din moldova moldova state university

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


Evolution of Neoconservative Views
Neoconservative Foreign Policy
George W. Bush Jr. Administration and its connection to Neoconservatives before and after 9/11
The Times
Подобный материал:
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17

Evolution of Neoconservative Views


Neoconservative foreign policy doctrine is a child of the Cold War. Its philosophical roots date back to the late 1940s and early 1950s. Neoconservatism is considered to be a political ideology and political movement that appeared in the United States of America from the rejection of social liberalism. Firstly, the term “neoconservative” was prominently used by democratic socialist Michael Harrington, the meaning of the term itself was similar to a modern interpretation. Using this term M.Harrington identified a group of people, who described themselves as liberals, as newly motivated conservative former liberals. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – he named them “socialists for Nixon” – who moved to the right. M. Harrington emphasized that neoconservatives tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but they differentiated themselves by being allies of the Nixon Administration over foreign policy. They put a strong accent on an opposition to the Soviet Union, support of Vietnam War and “welfare state” but already in its contemporary “interpretation”.

Michael Lind, who described himself to be a former neoconservative, wrote that this ideology “originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of H.Truman, J.Kennedy, L.Johnson …..many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberal’.”

Gary Kamiya, executive editor of an independent online magazine Salon, identifies two generations of neoconservatism. The first includes Senator from Washington Henry Martin Jackson (Scoop), Irving Kristol and Norman Podgoretz, who were former liberals who believed that America needed to stand up and fight against communism. Accusing their former colleagues on the left of going ‘soft’, they claimed that America's survival and the fate of the free world required not compromise. The second generation includes Robert Kagan, William Kristol, the son of Irving Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz, continued to believe in American exceptionalism and think that America should not just fight with evil but also promote democracies around the world. They wanted America to exercise “benevolent global hegemony.” It was considered that what is good for America is good for the rest of the world.149

The evolution of neoconservative view is grounded on the work and thought of Irving Kristol, who was a New York University professor a co-founder of “Encounter magazine”, and of its editor Norman Podhoretz. I. Kristol and N. Podhoretz are associated with the early leaders of this political movement. The number of neoconservative controlled or dominated program outlets and journals has constantly increased to them belong periodicals such as “Commentary”, “The Weekly Standard”, “The Washington Times”, “The New York Post”, and most of “National Review”, to this list can be also added foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the Project for the New American Century.

One of the most prominent and influential thinkers on neoconservatism was professor at University of Chicago, Leo Strauss. According to him, neoconservatism is a critique of liberalism focusing on a return to classical “wisdom” in order to derive a just regime.150

In order to understand the difference between neoconservatives and traditional conservatives James Nuechterlein points out some of the significant issues from domestic and foreign policy which differentiate one ideology from another. He believes that these issues are New Deal, civil rights, and the nature of the Communist threat. According to Nuechterlein’s point of view during New Deal, neoconservatives in comparison with traditionalists did not want to dismantle the “welfare state”, but to prevent its infinite expansion, as in the programs of the Great Society of L.B.Johnson. Nuechterlein mentions such issue as civil right because Neoconservatives were supporters of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 while conservatives were opposed to federal legislation against racial discrimination. As to communism, Nuechterlein emphasizes that Neoconservatives and traditionalists were both Anti-Communists, but the focus of latter was on the danger of external aggression, and conservatives were worried more about the threat of internal overthrow.

Neoconservative Foreign Policy


Neoconservative ideas may also affect the academic study of international relations over time as they redraw the parameters of state behavior in the post-Cold War environment. The underlying question is what impact the neoconservative vision has had in shaping contemporary American foreign policy, particularly that toward the Islamic world, and their future foreign policy implications for the United States. The war in Iraq, which the United States waged without significant allied support, was a test case for neoconservative policy principles. The mixed results of this action—a relative fast military victory in the field, then a costly, open-ended occupation that may prove to be a quagmire—call many of these principles into question.

According to Irving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservatism the foreign policy of neoconservative relies on three principles. The first principle is that patriotism is natural and should be encouraged; the second one implies that world government leads to tyranny, and the third principle tells that ‘statesmen, above all others, should have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies.”151 I. Kristol underlines that “with power come responsibilities... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.” D. Kagan and G.Schmitt express clearly that neoconservatives strongly believe that a well-funded and ready defense is vital to ensure America continues its role as a global leader.152 I. Kristol emphasized that favorite neoconservative text on foreign policy is Thucydides’ history on the Peloponnesian War.

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant Anti-Communism and sympathized non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less similar to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles, even if it was about unilateral action.153 Such foreign policy issues of the movement appeared in mid 1970s, believing that the United States should “export democracy,” what means to spread its ideals of the government, culture, and economics abroad, neoconservative became to reject reliance of the United States on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. In comparison to traditionalists, neoconservatives can be understood as much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, they also advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, for instance, the Arab nations of the Middle East, North Korea, communist China and Iran. Neoconservatives also believe strongly in the ability of the United States “to plant” democracy after a conflict-taking as an example denazification in Germany and installing a democratic government in Japan starting in 1945, and a major belief of them is defending democracies against aggression, for instance, removal of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

After entering the Bush Administration as National Security Advisor and a realist, Condoleeza Rice became a Secretary of State in G. Bush’ second term of presidency, she adopted a more liberalist notion of international relations and the transformational theory of democracy.154 C.Rice points out that it is not the intention of G. Bush’s foreign policy to impose democracy on other nations, but to create conditions that will allow democracy to flourish because the USA has the responsibility to make the world more secure.155

George W. Bush Jr.

Administration and its connection to Neoconservatives before and after 9/11


With the election of George W. Bush to the presidency in 2000, neoconservative foreign policy thinkers became prominent officials in the Department of Defense under George W.Bush. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks the neoconservative advisors to the President advocated a unilateralist doctrine of preemptive, or ‘preventive’ war in response to the threat. This doctrine holds that the United States should take armed action against states that potentially pose a menace even in the absence of an imminent military threat.

H. Thomas, a well-known correspondent and White House bureau chief for United Press International, does not consider early George W. Bush Jr. Administration as a support for neoconservative principles, she points out that as a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush was for the restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to idea of “nation-building” and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was coped without confrontation suggested by some neoconservative thinker.156 E. Dionne, an American journalist and commentator of The Washington Post, mentions that the early Administration found even critics of neoconservatives, they considered it to be as insufficient supportive of the State of Israel, and suggested G. Bush’s foreign policies did not have strong difference from those of President B.Clinton.157

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks seemed to be a dramatic change in the direction of the Bush Jr. Administration. A columnist and assistant editor of The Times, Gerard Baker writes, “It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr. Bush cited its most simplified tenet - that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world - as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere.”158

The “Axis of Evil” Speech was given by George W.Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29,2002 four and a half months after the attacks of 9/11 to describe governments that he accused of sponsoring terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea “axis of evil”.159

This speech “surprised” not only American political experts but also foreign ones. Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov of Russia, who sees all three as falling within its sphere of influence, questioned whether there was evidence to label the three an “axis of evil”. Former US Secretary of state Madeleine Albright called Mr. Bush’s comments “a big mistake.”But according to Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the government of Iran, Iraq and North Korea have now been “put on notice”.

But nevertheless, it should be taken into consideration that the countries Iran, Iraq and North Korea are three very different from each other countries and have little in common, share no agreement on joining an axis of anything and moreover in the case of Iran and Iraq are each other's worst enemies. There is one very important issue tying North Korea, Iran and Iraq together. O-I-L! It is also very important to be mentioned that the speech was written by neoconservative David Frum.

According to the policy analysts the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States, had many resemblances to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft that was written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz under secretary of defense for policy (the Pentagon's third-highest ranking civilian).

P.Wolfowitz's draft argues “for a new military and political strategy in a post-Cold War world.” Containment, it says, is a relic of the Cold War. America should talk loudly, carry a big stick, and use its military power to preempt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And if America has to act alone, so be it. After the draft is leaked to the press the White House orders Defense Secretary Cheney to rewrite it. In the new draft there is no mention of preemption or U.S. willingness to act alone.160 At this point the Bush Doctrine was greeted by neoconservatives and one of the neoconservative author, Max Boot agreed with Mr. Bush and added “We have to play a role of the global policeman…. But I also argue that we ought to go further.”161

The Iraq conflict was successfully performed and the regime of Saddam Hussein was quickly toppled; however the post conflict was not properly executed. This is a failure of Administration and by no means of neoconservatism. In the end, the United States is in a safer position when international threats take place in their home states but not being involved on American territory.

Neoconservatism has been strongly criticized as having “infiltrated” American conservatism as a vast conspiracy promoting perpetual conflict and the dominant position of the United States of America around the world. This political movement is relatively “young” in American politics whose attempts are to ensure global leadership position in an increasingly interconnected world. The Iraq War has given some bad press, but this movement will be limited not only by Bush Administration.162 In case neoconservatives become more and more militaristic, then the law and liberty must be supported by force. Neoconservatism as a political ideology has not fully been intertwined with the Republican Party, but, or course with large part of it. This ideology can become the dominant school of thought within the Republican Party.

Bibliography:

  1. “Assessing the Bush Doctrine” PBS Frontline. The war behind closed doors, Feb. 20, 2003
  2. “The Evolution of Bush Doctrine”. Frontline The war behind closed doors, Feb. 20, 2003