BOOK REVIEW

CONSTRUCTING 21ST CENTURY U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

MOMINA SOHAIL ABBASI

 CONSTRUCTING 21ST CENTURY U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
KARL K. SCHONBERG

 CENTRAL ARGUMENT

This book highlights the leader’s conception about the world that is the power of a state not only
lies in the material capabilities but upon its norms formed by the identity and ideology of one’s
country. Different events and elements are being explained in the book quoting different
examples. Schonberg explained the administration of George W. Bush stating that his
administration was no different from others in a way that he looked at the world and
opportunities, drawing norms and patterns of American identity from the history. Later in the
book, discussed the post era of 9/11 that completely shook the world, and foreign policy of
America. It is analyzed in the book that going on war against Iraq was mainly in the interest of
the United States of America because they consider themselves as the beacon of democracy and
caretakers of their own legacy. Furthermore in 21st century no country can devise foreign policies
of their own, interaction between the states and understanding their opinions had much
influenced the foreign policies of the world because the Bush policies were highly based on the
principle of Wilsonian philosophy and he considered this era as highly technological, through
which countries interact and solve crucial problems. In devising foreign policies, cultural norms,
identity, ideological behavior of other countries are also taken into consideration.

 INTRODUCTION

The attack on the pearl harbor brought significant changes in the world’s history. 9/11 attacks
disturbed the U.S economy but not damaged it fundamentally as well as didn’t bought such
changes that could change the overall existing global balance of power. After the tragic attack of
9/11 the role of U.S in the international politics was redefined by the president of the time
George w. bush. The attacks were considered as a threat to U.S identity. The concept of national
interest that later may or may not play roll in the foreign policy is still questionable because it is
a concept that is not based on rationality. In realist view, national interest of states lies in pursing
of states power i.e., by increasing its material capabilities. But this condition will create more
chances of hostility with the neighboring countries, making them insecure. Realist and neo-
realist approach was more dominant in cold war period. By the end of cold war, the shift of
paradigm was observed. More importance to ideas, norms, social interaction and culture was
given. The theory of constructivism gave a challenge to realist paradigm in 1990’s.
Constructivist differs from realist in terms of defining the processes such as power, self-interest
and overall system. Policies in the international system are not of course merely made by ideas
but taking in mind the material power a country has. Interaction between the ideas and other
influences are of prime importance.

 CHAPTER #1

This chapter explores the relationship between identity and ideology and constructivists
viewpoint on it. Few believes that for a social life identity of individual plays a significant role.
In the war with Iraq U.S. government clearly said that it is a war against civilization, that were
Muslim Arabs. But the case would be totally different if America was in war against U.K or
Canada because in this case the difference between national identity of Americans and others
would be difficult to understand. Some constructivists believe that international system is a
place where identities are interacting and are shaped. Identities thus mostly affects the policy
making process from domestic to international system. History shapes the identities and courses
of future expectations too. States policies are formed based on ideologies, because ideas are
rooted in the societies just like America and Japan. Perception of threat are affected by
ideologies. Thus, America’s foreign policy over the period has been very diverse that has been
reflected in her policies.

 CHAPTER #2

This chapter analyzes the political statements of leaders and policy makers after the 9/11 attacks
that changed the overall perspective of U.S policy making by mainly considering the identity and
ideologies of societies. Bush tried to meet two ends that were Wilsonian internationalism and
realist theory of use of force that can be seen in the case of Iraq. His administration adopted
harsh policies to counter terrorism, even it was stated that no such policy will be adopted that is
against the core principles of U.S system. The main failure of the policies was because of weak
linkages between the legal and democratic institutions. Although America claims to be the
staunch believer of peace and stability in the world, for this purpose it provided the likeminded
countries the aids to counter terrorism and clearly stated in UN to threat Saddam Hussain to
disarm for the peace of the world, but later the humanitarian goals upon which he stressed were
never achieved. Thus, his administration is still recognized as a fail among all.

 CHAPTER #3

The reason for the attack on America was of because of its promotion of freedom and
opportunities in the world, and fighting for civilization. For distancing such terrorists from the
earth, the U.S goal was clear that in this war against terrorism all nations will have to agree on
for America to use any type of extra-legal means to fight against them. Invasion of Iraq raised
many question on the Bush’s administration, thinking that Saddam Hussain will make alliances
with other terrorist group and will provide them as well with weapons of mass destruction. With
the war in Iraq liberal internationalists broke their own traditional policies, not that against
democracy or sovereignty of a country but for the protection of interest of one’s own country,
and that America can basically change the entire international system by initiating a war against
Iraq and terrorism as well as against the will of UN as in case of Kosovo. After the incident
America not only propagated her cause in the united nations but also promoted the agenda of
unilateral militarism. So, it’s not only the event that create changes in the international system,
the leaders through their speeches and policies give meanings to a certain event.

 CHAPTER #4

Constructivists are of the idea that individuals have ideas in their minds, when such individuals
interact in the form of group, then those ideas are reflected in policies. Ideas are formed at the
very basic level that are individuals to societies and then ultimately spread to overall community
and then translated in policy making process. In international politics, social and psychological
biases are observed as well. But one cannot say that individuals are rational free agents or are
totally influenced by societal environment but their attitudes are mainly influenced by set of
beliefs and ideas. Number of questions entrenched in the Bush’s administration after the attack.
U.S military after 9/11 was prepared for an interstate war, and yet it was discussed at the
National Security Council meeting that the focus of this initiative will totally be on al-Qaeda.
The idea of going on war against Iraq was after the Bush’s acceptance of neoconservative’s
agenda before 9/11 Bush personally was not in favor of neoconservatism. One of the factor of
failed policy in Iraq was Groupthink, unanimity was given importance instead of taking a
rational step in proceeding more harsh policy steps. Bush administration faced problems because
of the fact that they were pursuing their own interest and ideology without taking into account
the reaction of anti-Americans or other observers. Later this notion was circulated that it is not
Iraq which is creating the destruction around the world with weapons, it is the America that is
involved in destabilizing the world with its slogan of ‘with us or against us’.

 CHAPTER #5

President Bush suspicion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was fully supported by the
American people. The administration made their own perception about the identity of Iraq and
going against war with it. Thus, we can say that Bush administration jumped on to the conclusion
and showed the behavior of irrationality. The main purpose of government of the time was to
overthrow the Iraqi government and their links with the other terrorist’s groups, which U.S
considered a threat to their own security. The Bush government was successful in toppling
Saddam Hussain’s government but the U.S government was unable to provide the basic
necessities to the people of Iraq even after many months of the collapse of government in Iraq.
The Bush administration was of the belief that western democracy will lead the Iraq on the path
of stability, and arranged elections in 2005, that would ultimately end the occupation of U.S in
Iraq. But the things didn’t work for U.S, CIA also warned the government about the religious
situation in Iraq, the Sunni sect was deprived of their right in elections and thus the situation of
violence again started in Iraq. The people resisted the adoption of western culture and
democracy, the fact that was misjudged by the Bush’s administration. The U.S government was
not acknowledging the fact that these elections created a situation of civil war in the country.

 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

The United States holds the sense of ‘exceptionalism’ in the world and considers their
government as politically and democratically a just and fair government and an ideal for the rest
of the world. After 9/11 attacks the policy making by Bush’s administration was based on
American identity, that was that America is the only state that can dictate and promote the true
meaning of democracy, for other countries to follow the footsteps of U.S. After the tragic
incident of 9/11, it was America who divided the world in categories of civilization, terrorism or
barbarianism. Bush’s administration reminded the people that they are the defeaters of
communism from the world and they are the promoters of democracy in the world. But U.S
herself contradicted its stance of promotion of institutions by going against war on Iraq without
the permission of United Nations, by giving this fact that it can work even alone if needed in
order to persuade its own self-interest because in their opinion they are the chosen ones and the
caretakers of their own legacy. The United Sates was of the belief that middle east was under the
rule of suppressive leaders and the world is looking towards America to safeguard the basic
interest of the people by promoting the idea of democracy. But as matter of fact, the occupation
of Iraq by the Bush’s government was really a simplified concept that is availability of weapons
of mass destruction and Saddam’s link with other terrorist groups. U.S foreign policy was under
the influence of Wilsonian liberalism. But in the end the foreign policy was America was highly
misguided under the basis of ideological and identity related principles. So, the Bush’s
government negated their own idea of promotion of Wilsonian philosophy.

International relations theories of neorealism and realism dominated the world during the cold
war era. These theories were highly accepted at that time that is why they are reflected in the
foreign policy of the counties. With the change in paradigm, and the end of cold war bipolar
system, the influence of realism throughout the globe was declined. Today foreign policies of the
countries are not devised by a single leader or his administration with incomplete knowledge,
today the policies are devised by taking in mind that how such policy would affect not only the
international system but the local administration system as well, because policies are made by
taking in mind the cultural, social, political in fact all such dimensions that would directly or
indirectly create an affect either at national level or international level. Individual leaders have a
crucial role to play in the societies by altering the socially constructed identities in the society,
identity thus is considered as a powerful weapon in leadership and change, historical evidence
speaks for us in case of animosity between Japan and America and France and Germany, these
countries leadership played important role in constructing new identities and in ending the
animosities between the countries.