Даркенов К.Г., Утанов Б.

Астана, Казахстан

Foreign Policy of USA in 21^st century: evolution and modernization

Introduction

US foreign policy in relation to others countries for a long time was under construction in accordance with the two dominant ideologies logical concepts: political realism and political liberalism. Both concepts, sub-keeping and developing the idea of a global historical United States missions designed to become from the management of the resources of the entire democratic peace, nevertheless, noticeably differ in the choice of the US to the objectives, as well as in the selection of specific tools, methods and tools necessary to achieve it.[1,p.192]

The main differences between schools of political realization and liberalism (including their latest modification and flows) lie in the notion of which the factors determine foreign policy state at its basic, fundamental level.

If realists view everything that is happening through the prism of national interests, coincidence which is generated by cooperation, and the intersection or clash are conflicts, then the liberals foreign policy of any state arguing that resilience and viability political system directly depends on of its value system, and the political from the ability to carry (export) these values in the world around them. In this regard, for the liberal foreign policy seems to be instrumental in to disseminate these values to others actors of international relations, and mismatch values of different actors - the true cause the emergence of international conflicts.

Foreign Policy of George Bush

In the 2000s, during the period of George W. Bush's presidency, power actions have become even more. America declared war on terrorism. The beginning of this war was preceded by tragic events for America. On September 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists sent stolen passenger airplanes to buildings that symbolized the power of the United States - the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Several thousand people died, the Twin Towers of the Trade Center turned into ruins. The Bush administration has blamed the attack on al-Qaeda, an international network of extremist Islamists led by Osama bin Laden (a Saudi-born millionaire).[2]

In October-November 2001, the US led a military operation in Afghanistan for refusing to extradite Bin Laden, hidden in this country. The leader of the extremists escaped the hands of the Americans, but the bases of Al-Qaeda were destroyed, and the power in Afghanistan passed into the hands of the pro-American government. However, despite the presence in the country of several thousand soldiers of Western countries, peace in Afghanistan never came.

In 2001, the Bush administration abolished the treaty on the limitation of antimissile defense (ABM), concluded 20 years ago with the USSR. The Americans motivated this act with the need to protect themselves from terrorist threats. Bush's intention to deploy missile defense complexes in Eastern Europe was troubling the Russian leadership. From the site http://doklad-referat.ru

In 2002, the US declared its right to intervene in events in other countries for the sake of establishing democracy and a free market. The first victim of this policy was Iraq. Bush and his administration accused President Saddam Hussein of creating weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorists. The refusal of the Hussein government to cooperate with the UN was the reason for the outbreak of the war. In 2003, the Anglo-American coalition struck at Iraqi cities. The troops that landed in Iraq overthrew the government and seized Hussein, who was tried and executed. After that, 30 states of the world participated in a peacekeeping operation, which some countries considered the occupation of Iraq. A number of Western and Russian states not only refrained from participating in this action, but also condemned the excessive use of force. Mass anti-war actions, already forgotten since the Vietnam War, once again swept the world. Criticism grew even stronger when weapons of mass destruction were never found, but the facts of the American military's mockery of the arrested Iraqis became known. Bush was forced to bring several people to trial, but the damage to the US reputation was enormous. In the course of incessant guerrilla actions, more than 100,000 Iraqis and more than 1,000 American soldiers and officers were killed. Some states withdrew their troops from Iraq.

The US authorities made a significant contribution to the agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. But these agreements were thwarted in 2003 by the sharp increase in violence in the territories occupied by Israel and the actions of terrorists against citizens of the Jewish state. Later, groups of Palestinians began bloody strife among themselves, which further complicated the peace process. The United States continues to perceive Israel as its closest ally, while at the same time tensions remain between Israel and the countries of the Arab East.

Foreign Policy of Barack Obama

As the end of August approaches, the first phase of Obama's presidential term comes to an end. The first months of work of any US president are busy with appointments to key positions in the government and studying foreign policy levers and national security strategies. At the same time, the first meetings with foreign leaders and the first test raids in the field of foreign policy are held. In the first summer, the leaders of the countries of the Northern Hemisphere are on an annual vacation, and, excluding possible wars or crises, nothing happens on the international arena. Then comes September, and the world returns to the movement, and the first phase of the president's foreign policy is coming to an end. The president no longer thinks about what kind of foreign policy he will pursue; he now has foreign policy, which he conducts.

Thus, we are in a good position to stop and discuss not what US President Barack Obama will do in the sphere of foreign policy, but what he has already done and is doing now. As we have already noted, the most remarkable fact about Obama's foreign policy is how much it agrees with the policies of former President George W. Bush. There is nothing surprising. Presidents operate in a world of constraints; the options for their actions are limited. And yet it is worthwhile to delay and note how insignificant Obama is deviating from Bush's foreign policy.

During the 2008 election campaign, especially at an early stage, Obama opposed the war in Iraq. The central element of his early position was the statement that the war was a mistake and he would end it. Obama argued that Bush's policies - and, more importantly, his style of behavior - alienated the US allies. He accused Bush of pursuing a unilateral foreign policy that led to the alienation of the Allies, because there was no joint action. In saying this, he defended the assertion that the war in Iraq had destroyed the international coalition in which the United States needed to successfully hold any war.[3]

Obama also claimed that Iraq had become a distraction, and that major efforts should have been made in Afghanistan. He added that the United States in Afghanistan will need the support of NATO allies. He said that the Obama administration would reach out to the Europeans, restore ties and get stronger support from them.

Despite the fact that some 40 countries cooperated with the United States in Iraq, although many of them made only a symbolic contribution, the main continental European powers - especially France and Germany - refused to take part in this war. When Obama talked about the distance of the allies, he obviously had in mind these two countries, as well as the smaller European countries, once part of the American Cold War coalition, but not ready to take part in Iraq, and openly expressed hostility to US policy.

Obama's desire to restart relations with Europe was comparable to his desire to restart US-Russian relations. Since the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in late 2004 and early 2005, relations between the United States and Russia have deteriorated significantly, and Moscow has accused Washington of interfering in the internal affairs of the former Soviet republics in order to weaken Russia. The culmination of this was the Russian-Georgian war in August last year. Since then, the Obama administration has proposed to "reset" relations, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even brought a box on which the "reset button" was written, for her spring meeting with the Russians.

The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted to do was restart the relationship with the United States. They did not want to return to the times that followed the Orange Revolution, and they did not want to return to the times that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Obama administration's call for a reset showed that Russians and Americans look at things differently: Russians consider the period following the collapse of the Soviet Union as an economic and geopolitical catastrophe, while the Americans believe that at that time the situation was quite satisfactory. Both points of view can be understood.

The Obama administration signaled that it was going to continue the policy of the Bush administration towards Russia. This policy consisted in the fact that Russia has no legal rights to assert its priority in the countries of the former Soviet Union, and that the United States has the rights to develop bilateral relations with any country and to expand NATO at will. But the Bush administration believed that the Russian leadership is not ready to follow the basic pattern of relations that has developed since 1991 and that it unreasonably tries to reconsider relations that the Americans considered stable and desirable. To this, the Russians replied that the two countries should build completely new relations, otherwise the Russians will begin to pursue an independent foreign policy in which the hostility of Russia

Foreign Policy of Donald Trump

President-Elect Donald J. Trump says that Russian President Vladimir Putin does not respect President Barack Obama and that this has encouraged Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. “President Obama is not doing what he should be doing in Ukraine,” he said in 2015, although he did not offer specifics on what U.S. policy should be. He did, however, call on other European states to support Kiev.

In early 2016, Trump questioned whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an alliance founded decades ago to deter Soviet aggression, is still relevant. Moreover, he said the United States was paying much more than its fair share for the alliance. "It’s become very bureaucratic, extremely expensive, and maybe is not flexible enough to go after terror,” he said. “Terror is very much different than what NATO was set up for." Despite his criticisms, however, Trump said that as president he would honor U.S. treaty commitments under NATO, including the defense of the Baltic states from potential Russian encroachment.

Trump has at times praised Putin’s brand of leadership and said he would enjoy meeting the Russian leader. “I will tell you in terms of leadership he is getting an 'A,' and our president is not doing so well,” Trump said in 2015. Trump has said that because of his business background and his frequent trips to Moscow, he would likely have a “great relationship with Putin.”

Trump has suggested that the United States let Russian forces destroy the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Syria. In 2015, he characterized Russian air strikes in Syria as a “positive thing.” Trump also said Russia would likely suffer the same fate as the United States in the region. “We just get bogged down in the Middle East and Russia will get bogged down in the Middle East,” he said. In July 2016, he floated the idea of the U.S. military partnering with Russian forces to fight the militant group. “Wouldn't it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?" he said.

In December 2016, President-Elect Trump dismissed as “ridiculous” a classified CIA assessment that found Russian hackers likely interfered in the U.S. presidential election to tilt the contest in Trump’s favor. He suggested U.S. intelligence agencies were politically motivated in their analysis and couldn’t be trusted based on their past record. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

In a March 2016 debate, the Republican seemed to indicate he would be willing as president to deploy tens of thousands of U.S. troops to battle the Islamic State. "We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS," he said. "I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of twenty thousand to thirty thousand." Days later, Trump said in an interview that he would likely suspend U.S. purchases of Saudi oil if the country did not contribute troops to the fight against the Islamic State. Meanwhile, Trump called for a greater U.S. effort to disrupt the Islamic State's access to oil revenues and "dark banking channels."[4]

Trump favors the creation of so-called safe zones for refugees in parts of Syria. He said the U.S. military could lead efforts to protect these areas but that other countries, particularly the Arab Gulf states and Germany, should pay for the operation.

In the final presidential debate, in October 2016, Trump faulted the U.S. military and its allies in Iraq for revealing its plans to retake the city of Mosul, thus forfeiting the “element of surprise.” He also said that the United States had nothing to gain from the operation and suggested the Obama administration had timed the attack to boost the candidacy of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Trump said that the retaking of Mosul would principally benefit Iran. "Iran is taking over Iraq. We don't gain anything," he said.

Conclusion

All the actions of the first Bush administration were greatly influenced by the events of September 11, 2001. The terrorist acts for which the Islamist Al-Qaida organization took responsibility allowed the US president to announce the readiness of the US to lead a global war on international terrorism. This attitude has had a decisive influence on Bush's entire domestic and foreign policy.[5]

Since the topic of combating international terrorism proved to be very advantageous, providing the president with high popularity ratings, it was decided to continue the course begun. In January 2002, Bush Jr. said that the entire civilized world, and primarily the United States, is threatened by an "axis of evil", the main link of which was Iraq. Although the US was not able to provide convincing evidence of the aggressive designs of the Saddam Hussein regime, in March 2003, US troops invaded Iraq. The military phase of this operation ended successfully for the US successfully: the government of Hussein was overthrown (later he was arrested and executed), and the territory of Iraq was occupied by coalition forces led by US troops. The occupation authorities began to prepare the ground for "bringing Iraq to democracy". All this enabled Bush Jr. to constantly declare his success in the fight against international terrorism [6]

In 2008, the Americans faced a severe financial and economic crisis that hit the US economy and caused the collapse of a number of banks, a huge budget deficit, a decline in production, mass unemployment.

In 2017, after the presidential election, the victory of Donald Trump had a very serious impact on the Americans. His multi-vector policy is based on the economic sphere so nowadays it is going on.

REFERNCES

1. Cygankov P.A. Politicheskaya sociologiya mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenii. M., 1994; Cygankov P.A. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. M., 1996.

2. George Leaman. 2004. “Iraq, American Empire, and the War on Terrorism.” Metaphilosophy. 35(3):234.

ABSTRACT: Argues that the U.S. government is trying to secure American military and economic supremacy on a global scale over the long term and that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of this imperial project. Examines these developments in the context of U.S. military spending and foreign policy since the end of the cold war.

3. Schwarzenberger G. Power Politics. A Study of World Society. Third Edition. London, 1964, pp. 216-221. V kn.: Cygankov P.A. Politicheskaya sociologiya mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenii. M., 1994.

4. http://www.hyno.ru/tom3/1068.html США на современном этапе

5. Anthony Burke. 2004. “Just War or Ethical Peace? Moral Discourses of Strategic Violence after 9/11.” International Affairs. 80(2): 329.

ABSTRACT: Deconstructs arguments made using just-war theory to excuse the humanitarian costs of the War on Terror. Argues that just-war theory may liberate war rather than morally restrain it. Concludes by developing “ethical peace” as an alternative conceptual framework that seeks to create a genuinely universal moral community.

6.Gerd Oberleitner. 2004. “A Just War against Terror?” Peace Review. 16(3): 263-268.