ULI358U-AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
Chapter 7: The United States in the Post 9/11 World, 2001-2019
New Global American Military Positioning and American Imperial Ambition
The 1990s can also be addressed as the decade of globalization (Kurth, 2007: 148). This had a triple impact on international relations (Yilmaz 2008, p. 44). In the period between the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 and the fall of Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 (also known as the 9/11), there were four significant developments in the world stage. The first development was the pervasive spread of globalization around the world. (Kurth, 2007: 150) Globalization defined simply as a “borderless world” (Chin and Mittelman, 1997: 25) was not just limited to spread of trade and investment but also spread of popular culture. It is based on the economic theory of comparative advantage (Mourdoukoutas, 2017). It was promoted by the United States as rational, desirable and inevitable (Kurth, 2007: 148). The second significant development was the growing resistance towards globalization which is also known as the global justice movement or anti-globalization movement due to its acute effect of negative aspects on the national identity or the sovereignty of people. Despite those winners in the West, there were also many losers of globalization such as Russia, the Muslim world (particularly Iran and Iraq), Africa and some countries in Latin America who were not able to cope with the negative effects of globalization (Reasons why globalization, 2002). This resistance and resentment towards this new phenomenon found itself in international terrorism such as attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 in the US. The other significant development in this period was the growing awareness of the potential need to use military force (Kurth, 2007:150). The United States formulated a different notion in order to deal with the coming of international terrorism known as the “Bush Doctrine”. The final significant development in this period was the Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe and of the Cold War (Yilmaz 2008: 44). Later on, all these developments in the world paved the way to a new global phenomenon known as the “American Imperial Ambition”. It was now the time for a new type of American ordering of the world since, for the first time, there were no longer any rivals with the equivalent capabilities left (Kurth, 2007: 150).
By the turn of 2000s, the United States was the sole super- power in the world as the Soviet Union was no longer a challenger. America’s supreme position in the world was mainly built on four dimensions: (1) the USA not only had the largest and most advanced economy within the global economy but it was also the driving force of globalization, (2) the USA was not only the sole superpower but it was also a hyperpower, (3) the USA was the only country with the high-tech military power within the globe and was, at the time, “the leader in the revolution in military affairs”, and (4) the USA was a great example of not only a hard power but also a soft power as well. It was the
disseminator of its popular culture throughout the world (Friedman 2015, p. 1).
Rise of the Neo-Cons and American Moment Discussion
Before delving into the consequences of the coming of the American Empire and in order to understand the conditions that lead to it in more detail, it is vital to understand the four perspectives on American Foreign Policy and the rise of neo-conservatives. The global imperial project of America was “the outcome of a domestic political struggle.” We can identify four different American foreign policy traditions. These are: (1) Traditional Liberals (also widely known as the Jeffersonian tradition), (2) Traditional Conservatives (also widely known as the Jacksonian tradition), (3) Neoliberals (also widely known as the Wilsonian tradition), and (4) Neo-conservatives (also widely known as the Hamiltonian tradition). The first two traditions are usually addressed as the national perspectives due to their emphasis on the principle of national interest. They argue that the United States should be governed by its national interests, which are the “promotion and protection of the interests of Americans (Kurth, 2007: 155)”. On the other hand, neoliberals and neoconservatives share a global perspective rather than a national perspective. Both of them consider the United States as a unique power in the world. But according to Neoliberal tradition, the central concern in US foreign policy should be its role in the global economy and society. The USA should be the leader in the globalization process with policies such as the progressive elimination of borders, the creation liberal democracies, free markets, democratic peace or liberalization of societies. The Neoconservatives’ main concern is to eliminate all military or terror threats to American security and provide security of its allies (primarily Israel) while utilizing its military might to deter its enemies. It aims to eliminate threats such as rogue states, terrorist organizations or Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and force regime changes in regions like Middle East through taking on the task of nation- building in the name of creating a safer world for democracy.
With the coming of 2000s, the world experienced the rise of Neo-conservatives and a “unipolar turn” in neoconservative foreign policy thinking. After the Soviet Communism collapsed in 1989, the United States, for the first time in its history, became the world’s sole superpower (Ryan 2018: 1). During George W. Bush Junior era, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives came together and they formed an even greater coalition in the house. Neo-conservative thinking had four tenets. First, neo-conservatives believed that military preeminence of the United States should be preserved also in the post- Cold War period. Secondly, they perceived foreign policy as a “moral clarity about the forces of “good and evil”. They emphasized the superiority of certain ideas such as democracy and advocated the significance of strong military (Allison, 2012: 256.) Third, neo-conservatives believed that the United States should not only leverage its military power but should also be eager to utilize its
military force to pursue its foreign policy interests. Finally, neo-conservatives ignored and downgraded international institutions (Allison, 2012: 257). Neo- conservatives also had a specific foreign policy perspective on the Middle East. They had a “special interest in the security of Israel.” Therefore, they considered Iraq, Syria and Iran as major threats.
9/11 and the Change of Direction in Politics
New challenges began to appear for US policy makers in 1970s. One was the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel on 29 March 1979 (Fawcett, 2013: 331). The other challenge was the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was also one of the important challenges for the USA. Finally, the emergence of Saddam Hussein as the sole ruler of Iraq and the takeover of the grand mosque in Saudi Arabia by Islamist militants were all concerning. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airlines and destroyed the symbols of American financial might (twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center) and military might (Pentagon) respectively. The fourth attack was prevented but approximately more than three thousand Americans already died in the attacks. These attacks not only demonstrated that the United States was not invulnerable (Cohen 2013: 302) but it was also not welcomed as the sole remaining superpower internationally and US foreign policy no longer could be expected to intervene in other countries without consequences. The 9/11 attacks had significant consequences. One of them was the new “pre-emptive and unilateral strategy” developed by the Bush Doctrine and the first shift in US foreign policy since the Truman era. The second important consequence was the “one percent doctrine”. Although it is not one of the neo-conservative tenets, it was made by the Bush administration due to their feeling of vulnerability after the attacks. It also provided an “operational answer to a key element of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war (Allison, 2012: 261). Another consequence was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan with the removal of the Taliban regime in 2001. Before 2003, Iraq had chronic weaknesses.
The American Question of “Why Do They Hate Us”?
September 11 attacks were quite traumatic for the American people and afterwards, a great question went up: “Why do they hate us? (Kurth, 2007: 151)” In 2001, the White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (Fleischer cited in Bandow 2011) explained that Americans were hated because they were “beautiful people spreading freedom around the world”, “they don’t understand our goodness” and “they hate our freedoms… our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other (White House News Release quoted in Bandow 2011).” The United States once had a positive and good image in the Middle East. However, this positive image has eroded due to rising nationalism in the Middle East, the US project for a Jewish state in Palestine, US eagerness to have access to oil and American concerns about Soviet Union in the region (Fawcett 2013: 318).
These developments, combined with the anti-globalization movement, became the cause of International Terrorism. Globalization has produced its own winners and losers. The winners of globalization were mostly “businesses, professionals and even working classes that are competitive in the global market” while the winners of the Muslim world, Russia, Latin America and Africa consisted of only a small elite resented by the rest of the population.
Fight Against International Terrorism
In 1979, a new phenomenon emerged in the international system: Islamic extremism. Extremists in the Muslim world has two types. On the one hand, there are Shia- driven movements which are mostly sponsored by Iran and manifest themselves in Lebanon, and on the other hand, there are fundamentalist and Wahhabi Sunni Islam movements. Sunni groups that are mostly Anti- Israeli and Anti-American groups which resurfaced in 1970s in Egypt and Syria. Hezbollah can be given as an example of Shia-driven movements while the Islamist Hamas party in Palestine and ISIS can be given as examples to Sunni extremists (Fawcett 2013: 318).
Global Interventionism
Why did the US fail in Middle East and specifically in Iraq? One of the reasons was the military transformation project by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Even though the US armed forces were very successful against Saddam’s army, they were unsuccessful in the counterinsurgency war and maintaining stability and security in the post-war period in Iraq. This was due to several reasons. Firstly, Rumsfeld’s forces lacked the necessary military personnel per civilian which was needed to establish security and deter the insurgency. The ratio was 20 soldiers for every 1000 civilian in Iraq. Secondly, the USA’s traditional allies were marginalized and insulted by the American administration during this period. Thirdly, one of the first things that US army did in this period was abolishing the entire army and other security forces of Iraq since they were believed to be Saddam’s instruments (Kurth, 2007: 164-165).
Failure in the Middle East
This failure in the Middle East had six significant consequences. Before this failure, US had an image of invincibility in the Middle East. This image has not only been demolished, but the US also showed that it had vulnerability against asymmetrical threats as a consequence of losing peace in Iraq (Fawcett, 2013: 318). The US was described as “paper tiger” during this period. Enemies of the US such as Russia, China or terrorist groups were encouraged moreover, and some terrorist groups increased the intensity of their actions which included bombing civilian targets in Madrid or Istanbul. Second, the US’s failure in Iraq stipulated the perception of a systematically declining USA. America’s unilateral and unipolar actions in Iraq caused some existing and
emerging powers such as BRIC countries to re-discuss US power (Fawcett, 2013: 307). Third, the regime change in Iraq did not create a profound change and the war led to a rise of terrorism and instability within the overall region (Fawcett, 2013: 328). A new initiative called “Neighboring Countries Initiative” was formed in order to contain the turmoil and instability in Iraq and limit the effect of this instability on neighboring states such as refugee flow to primarily Jordan and Syria, flow of radical ideas, violent spillover from Iraq into the neighboring states. After the invasion, Iraq became a safety hub for terrorist organization all around the world to gather and train together which became a huge concern for the neighboring states. The initiative comprised of six regional states and its first meeting was held in Istanbul, Turkey on January 2003. Fifth, the failure in the Middle East entrapped and faded US democratic idealism and its fantasies of democracy and reconstruction in Iraq (Fawcett 2013: 315). Another significant consequence was the altered balance of power in the region (Fawcett, 2013: 312). According to Kenneth Waltz, power begs to be balanced and for the region, it was re-balanced with the disappearance of Iraq. (Waltz, 2012) Iran was one of the countries that was both content and anxious about the invasion of Iraq. Gulf states were concerned about Shia assertiveness in the region and specifically Jordan was concerned about Al-Qaida inspired destructiveness. Hence, for the other countries, rise of Iran in the region not only threatened the Arab community but also created a “recharged pole of attraction for those actors out of step with the US policy of bandwagon (Fawcett, 2013: 318).” When Israel first possessed nuclear weapons under strategic ambiguity, this severely impacted the relations of Israel with other states in the region by unbalancing the power distribution (Deep 2018). After Iran decided to nuclearize, six countries declared their intention to obtain a nuclear capacity for peaceful purposes. The invasion of Iraq also shook the trust between the two strategic allies; USA and Turkey. The war in Iraq created concerns over the Turkish side in terms of significant security risks such as rising Kurdish ethno-nationalism. The United States wanted to use its bases in Incirlik in Adana for the operation in Iraq and thus asked permission from the Turkish government to use its bases. With the controversial 1 March 2003 motion, Turkish Parliament surprisingly refused it and it deeply impacted the US- Turkish relations in this period (Fawcett, 2013; Taydaş and Özdamar 2013).
Invention of New Geographies
As a solution to protect the American interests in the region, the US government invented new geographies such as the Greater Black Sea Region and Broader Middle East and North Africa. Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) terminology was invented in Washington DC by the US officials as a multilateral project to change the economic and political conditions of this region following the US-led military operation in Iraq
and first made known to public on 13th of February 2004 through an Arabic newspaper (Al-Hayat) based in London.
Greater Black Sea Region and Broader Middle East and North Africa
The main problem in the Middle East was instability and terror which was producing threats targeting Western nations. Hence, the solution to this problem was to establish democracy and freedom that was sorely lacking throughout the Greater Middle East. Hence the essential logic behind this project was to ensure the emergence of democracy, create a better humanitarian environment for the Middle Eastern peoples, diminish risks targeting US and other Western interests and to solve US security problems stemming from the region. If the problems of fundamentalism, terrorism and spread of WMDs, lack of democracy and human rights, as stated by the UNDP Arab Human Development report, poor level of socio-economic conditions, existence of terrorist networks, failed governments of the rogue states can be solved or changed in a positive direction, the new dynamics in the region would be able to provide a better life quality not only for the Middle Eastern society but also for the Western states by solving their security problems (Erhan 2005: 160).
The Rise of China
The US policy towards China has changed significantly since the establishment of People’s Republic of China in 1949. As China deferred Soviet Union as the leader of the communist bloc in the 1950s and later involved in the Vietnam war (Pillsbury 2016: 57), the United States believed China was an aggressive and expansionist power threatening the security of its noncommunist neighbors. Hence, for the first twenty years (1949-1969) the US followed a containment policy vis a vis China (University, 2009). In other terms, the US tried to disrupt, destabilize and weaken the communist government by constructing an offshore line of military alliances along eastern and southern borders of China such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In this period, the United States formed Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) and signed the ANZUS Treaty. With these treaties and initiatives, countries like Thailand, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, South Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand were linked with the United States which established military bases and troops in these countries. The US not only involved in the Vietnam War but also prevented its allies entering into diplomatic relations with China, cut off its trade, and announced an international embargo on Beijing in this period. Between 1970-1979, the United States chose to pursue a rapprochement strategy. With an increasing Soviet threat and China’s enormous potential market, China and the US began to move closer to one another and the United States greatly benefited from close military and security cooperation with Beijing against their common adversary. China was resisting the pressure from the Soviet Union and the US
did not want the Soviets to get stronger by keeping China on their own side (University, 2009). Hence, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger paid a secret trip to Beijing in July 1971 (Pillsbury 2016: 57). But the breakthrough to rapprochement was President Nixon’s opening of relations with his formal visit to China in February 1972 and the Shanghai Communique which was signed by Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai. (University, 2009) According to this Communique, the United States was agreeing with the “one China policy” and withdrawing all of its military forces and installations from Taiwan and recognizing the communist China as the legitimate government of the Chinese people (Pillsbury 2016: 69) where President Carter sent to China the highest level delegation of the US scientists ever to visit another country. After this agreement US-China relations began to develop (University, 2009). In 1976, Ronald Reagan also agreed with the idea of “closer ties with the Chinese as a wedge against the Soviets” (Pillsbury 2016: 70). From 1979 to present, China and the US maintained full diplomatic relations and a mutually productive array of ties and interactions from trade to investment (Swaine 2019). Even though the US had to break its formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, through the “Taiwan relations act”, it continued its informal relations with the Island by committing itself to maintain Taiwan’s self- defense capacity if it is attacked by mainland China. China’s reform and opening policies by becoming vastly more integrated with the rest of the international community with its adoption of market-based economic development, further paved the way of normalizing diplomatic relations with the United States, the rapid development of trade and investment ties with the West and cooperation in number of issues such as working for peace in Korea (University, 2009). There were several covert offers during this period between China and the United States such as explicit security promises, or sharing technologies (Pillsbury 2016: 62). China’s development not only contributed vastly to China itself but also to overall global growth where the US traders and investors made significant profits for their shareholders in the United States and elsewhere (Swaine 2019). Despite these developments, significant issues still remained unresolved between the United States and China such as Chinese human right policies, China’s large trade surpluses with the US, China’s sales of missiles and nuclear technology to Middle Eastern countries, American arms sales to Taiwan (University, 2009) and Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 which temporarily slowed down their relationship (Swaine 2019).
Pivot to Asia
On 13 April 2013, the US Secretary of State John Kerry paid a visit to China and met with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing. The visit which happened during the Obama administration was perceived as a signal that Bush era concerns with democratization, terrorism and the Middle
East were over (Schiavenza, 2013). 9/11 attacks, Iraq war, Afghanistan war and war against international terrorism has diverted the US’ attention from East Asia that is getting stronger and paving the way to becoming the new economic center of gravity. This was one of the main reasons why the United States wanted a pivot to Asia strategy which was considered to be a win-win strategy.
The Arab Spring and Afterwards
Arab Spring, which was a term, invented by an American academic (Simpson 2014) was a series of anti-government and pro-democracy uprisings due to lack of “bread and freedom” that spread across the Middle East in early 2011 (Gause, 2011: 81). There existed deep economic problems and political problems in these regimes for a long period of time. Muammar al-Qaddafi has ruled Libya since 1969, the Assad Family took charge of Syria since 1970s, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali became president of Tunisia in 1987, and Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt since 1981 (Gausse 2011). The protests began in Tunisia against former leader Zine el-Abidin Ben Ali after the death of Tarek al Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor in the town of Sidi Bouzid who burned himself as a protest against the government in January 2011. The suicide galvanized Tunisian protesters and took them to the streets. Within a month, the autocratic president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia. Through the social media, the protests spread very quickly across Arab speaking countries including Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria, all demanding similar rights and demands (Manfreda 2019). The next place that upheavals erupted was Bahrain where protesters demanded human rights reforms as well as economic ones. The parliament is dissolved in Jordan and Kuwait due to public pressure and in Yemen, protesters forced their president to step down. The social media, specifically the new media, also played a significant role in the rapid spread and organization of the uprisings in the light of the absence of an open media and a civil society. These peaceful protests later on turned into civil wars in some countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen (Blakemore, 2019) where pro-democracy movement met with government opposition with the death of Arab Spring protesters. Sectarian violence and polarization followed. In Syria, more than half of all Syrians fled from their countries or cities to neighboring places and up to half a million people died. The United States opted to stay out of it militarily and instead followed an offshore balancing strategy in the MENA during the Arab Uprisings. This strategy has eventually failed (Hamid 2015). Events in the Middle East including the Syrian civil war tended to proceed in a vicious cycle. Arab uprisings were able to spark a variety of changes within the region, but one thing remained constant, the outsized influence of outside powers. Even though the United States opted to stay out, other players moved in to fill the void. The United States did not openly take sides at the beginning of the Arab Spring. Only when Ben Ali fled the country, Obama administration adopted and announced its support for the
revolution rather than backing the dictators. However, Hosni Mubarak’s replacement who is a supporter of the Arab-Israeli peace process and an opponent of Iran was not favorable for the US.
Trump Era American Foreign Policy
Trump administration explicitly labeled China as an existential threat to American interest who was accused to be a revisionist power aiming to build a Sino-Centric world order and dominate Asia by a combination of economic and military means both in their 2017 US National Security Strategy, the 2018 Summary of the National Defense Strategy and the US “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (Swaine 2019).” Amid this dangerous downward spiral, the Trump Administration not only withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord but also undermined potential mechanisms such as the Trans- Pacific Partnership and revised World Trade Organization agreement. The Trump administration adopted economic policies like imposing tariffs to force Beijing to submit to fully open its markets and eliminate state involvement into Chinese economy which resulted in trade wars (Swaine 2019).