Bush hoped to show the world, and especially Russia, that our superiority gave us options that other countries did not have in shaping diplomacy and world policy. However, this was new ground for any U.S. president, and the Bush administration seemed tentative in their dealings with Russia. Another writer notes, "For those issues that were beyond the cold war, such as profound change engulfing Europe and Russia, the Bush administration was usually quite tentative and cautious, allowing others to take the foreign policy initiative" (Scott 36). Thus, the Bush administration was strong on the Middle East and terrorism, but soft on Russia and the Soviets.
President Clinton's foreign policy was strong, because the U.S. held the clear advantage in weaponry and manpower after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Another author notes, "No one could remotely challenge U.S. military and economic capacity and insofar as America's 'core concepts' were driving the technological, social, and cultural dimensions of globalization American values were deemed ascendant as well" (Oliver). Thus, American became the dominant world power once again, and it would take on a more "global" aspect rather than zeroing in on one or two important areas, such as the Middle East or Russia. He attempted to blend foreign and domestic policy to create a more globalized vision of diplomacy and accord. Historian Oliver continues, "The substantive focus of American foreign policy was to be, therefore, on the North American-European-Japanese core and the international economic regimes, institutions, and arrangements designed to foster trade" (Oliver). Thus, Russia was not the dominant player in foreign policy that it had been. However, since the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was still much negotiating and diplomacy to work out, and Clinton's administration, while creating a more global outlook, still had to deal with arms control and proliferation, and creating a workable liaison with the Russians. This was difficult with the Russian president Boris Yeltsin, known more for his drinking bouts than his foreign policy skills.
In conclusion, who was the best president when it comes to foreign policy regarding Russia? Perhaps it was Reagan, who worked to bring a breakup of the Soviet Union and a more democratic government to the Soviet block countries. The worst was probably Carter, who had little real world experience in world policies. While Nixon opened up China and created ties there, his policies on nuclear disarmament, while still building up multi-warhead weapons, was duplicitous and dangerous. He too could qualify as the worst when it came to dealings with the Soviets during his administration.
References
Ambrose, Stephen E. Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938. New York: Penguin Books, 1997.
Leffler, Melvyn P. "Bush's Foreign Policy." Foreign Policy Sept.-Oct. 2004: 22+.
Oliver, James K. "The Foreign Policy Architecture of the Clinton and Bush Administrations." White House Studies 4.1 (2004): 47+.
Scott, James A., ed. After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998.
The British created a well-educated, English-speaking Indian elite middle class d. new jobs were created for millions of Indian hand-spinner and hand-weavers The Indian National Congress can best be described in which of the following ways: Answer: a. An Indian Civil Service that administered British rule. b. A group of upper-caste professionals seeking independence from Britain. c. white settlers who administered British rule. d. anglicized Indians who were the social equals of white rulers. Under the
Asian Tourism Critical Issue The Asian travel industry has been rocked as of late by a series of events, fears and rumors. These events and possibilities have really hurt the Asian tourism industry and this will probably remain the case for quite a while. In general, there are two major issues at hand. First, there are the areas that are in turmoil and/or war. These areas include Hong Kong, Russia/Ukraine and
World War II in the Context of History and Modern Warfare The 20th Century was simultaneously a Century of exceptional advancement and unsurpassed violence. Why was this a Century of incomparable violence? The quick answer is that we, as a human race, used many of our advancements to become far more efficient killers; where advancements of prior centuries allowed armies to kill tens of thousands, the advancements of the 20th Century
World War II WW II Manhattan Project: Begun in 1939, this project was the codename for the United States' secret Atomic Bomb project. With America's entry into the war, the project grew substantially and ultimately involved more than 125,000 people, 37 separate installations, 13 university laboratories and a number of the nation's top scientists. (History.com: "World War 2: Atomic Bomb") In 1942 the project was put under the control of the U.S.
World War II Economical and military abilities of major participants of the war - Germany Soviet Union France Great Britain Important military campaigns France (including Belgium and Holland) Balkan campaign (Greece and Yugoslavia) Russian campaign Industrial production in 1943 World War II is the most tragic but extremely interesting period of human history of al centuries. It was a regular continuation of previous absurd bloody conflict - World War I. New war began after Germany was defeated in WWI and after
The strike at Heligoland Bight was not intended to seriously hurt the German fleet. Rather, it was intended to distract Germany from the landing of marines at Ostend in Belgium. Catching the German fleet completely by surprise in its own port, German light cruisers engaged the Royal Navy without proper cover. The Germans lost 3 light cruisers and a destroyer, as well as more than 1,000 men. In great
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now