President Obama of the United States of America gave a long speech in India, November 2010. His visit in India was on his way to Asia, whereby he intended to visit Japan, china, south Korea and Singapore. The four countries he visited own more than 46% of the United States foreign-held debt. The speech that he gave consisted of so many things, but most importantly, he stretched on the relations between the United States and India.
As much as India has changed in various things, Obama added that the relationship of the two nations has also changed (Jaffe 12). The partnership of India and United States was considered as natural and necessary during this meeting. One of the major benefits of ensuring a good relation between the two nations was to bring them closer to each other, hence increasing trade and the success of some important agreements.
Obama insisted that, it is his vision, and that of his nation for India and the United States to partner for their mutual benefit, and that of the whole world. Every country has a desire to satisfy its interests. The United States president said he was convinced and sure that, relating with India would make the interests of the two nations best advanced.
Some of the interests of the United States as stated by Obama were security, prosperity, growing economy, and respect for universal values (Duke 10). The promoted relation between India and the United States would make these interests achievable. Stronger global relationship would assist most of the nations to realize their dreams of prosperity.
The United States president confirmed to the Indians that the relationship between the two countries is unique. Some of the unique features that can strengthen their relationship, and reap some benefits are their strong democracies. The constitutions of the two nations begin with the same revolutionary words according to Obama. The relation of the two nations was going to be very positive and very beneficial to the whole world.
Much of the benefits were to be realized from the fact that, the two nations are free market economies, whereby their citizens are free to pursue their interests, and come up with new ideas that can bring change to world. The partnership of India and the United States is considered to be an indispensable one, and would meet the major challenges that are faced by nations especially the developing ones.
Enhancing the relationship of the two nations has been a priority of the United States president. He started working on the success of this relationship during the first official state visit, in the white house, when he invited India Prime Minister Singh.
Through this visit, the two governments started working together, especially in finding solutions of the major challenges that the two nations encounter (Wagner 32). The president confirmed that, the United States will not only welcome India into this healthy relationship, but it would also support it, to make the visions of the two nations a reality.
The issue of securing the world from dangerous and vulnerable nuclear material was another stated benefit to be reaped from this relationship. This is meant to result to these two nations strengthening the backgrounds of democratic governance, globally. The president appreciated the efforts of Indian government to make use of technology to make issues more open and transparent to the citizens (29).
He recommended that, as a good way of empowering citizens, by making the services that they require available to their reach, and making officials responsible of their acts. Obama emphasized that the new collaboration of the two governments would major in sharing experiences, identify the key areas, and come up with the most efficient tools to empower their citizens.
Works Cited
Duke, Gerald. Obamas ten day journey to Asia. 2010. Web.
Jaffe, Mathew. President Obama in India. 2010. Web.
Wagner, George. President Obamas Asia Visit. 2010. Web.
Barack Obama is the new President of the United States who was elected on this position not that long ago. At the very beginning of his president campaign he was very popular, and he still has a lot of people among ordinary citizens and inside his cabinet who support him. However, some of his actions and laws have already caused a lot of debates and reduced his popularity among people.
Nicolas Sarkozy – the sixth President of the French Republic was also very popular in 2007, and easily managed to defeat his main opponent Segolene Royal. An ambitious and charismatic leader, Sarkozy has done a lot to save his country during the economic recession. This still did not protect him against criticism and so-called “anti-Sarko” movements.
One of them is considered to be a man who started a new page in the American history. No matter what they say, the 44th President of the United States is an African American, and, from my point of view, it is one of the greatest democratic achievements.
Another one is the first French president from an immigrant family (Kesselman, Krieger, Joseph 127). In his country, he is called a “hyper-president”, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Louis XIV because of his will to control everything and make changes even if other reputable politicians do not support them.
So, do Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy really have something in common? Are they partners and allies as many tend to think or some major differences in their views and policies make it just an illusion?
In this essay, I want to compare domestic and foreign policies of both Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy, and define what kind of relations they have.
Presidency Of Barack Obama: Domestic Policy
Once Barack Obama became the President, he had no time to relax. Urgent measures to handle the effects of the world financial crisis had to be taken. One of such measures became an economic stimulus bill suggested by Barack Obama even before his presidency. The law was signed on January 2009, but in October, it turned out that the law did not work well, since unemployment rates reached 10.2%. Since 1983, it was the highest rate (Bureau of Labor Statistics).
One of the President Obama’s primary concerns was the health care reform, which caused heated debates. Democrats and Republicans were trying to answer such questions as whether the right to health care is fundamental, whether all American citizens should have access to health care no matter some circumstances, whether it is the federal government that should make such changes, etc (Dinan 1).
On March 23, 2010 the initiative of the President Obama to perform a health care reform was supported by the Congress. At this moment, it is hard to predict what effects it might have, whether it will be a failure or no. Yet, what is obvious from the two examples above is that the President Obama has own views on what may be better for the country in these hard times, he can set up goals, and develop plans on how to achieve them.
President Obama’s Foreign Policy
On the international level, Barack Obama has also demonstrated some achievements as well as several failures from my point of view.
For instance, the recent Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which was signed by the American and Russian Presidents on April 8, 2010, can be called one of the most significant international documents signed by the President Obama since his presidency. Two countries with the biggest nuclear potentials have taken the responsibility and agreed to reduce their arms.
Another example of the “right” international policy is the President’s decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Although this plan is only going to be implemented, it is a step that I think all Americans will support. However, what I do not agree with is the President’s focus on Afghanistan. It is also time to stop wasting money there and endanger our soldiers.
Nicolas Sarkozy’s Domestic Policy
The French President Nicolas Sarkozy is a very charismatic leader, sometimes a bit rude, too active, too demanding. Yet, what I think is that Sarkozy is one of the best French presidents who really acts in the interests of his country and people. Anita Hausser, who wrote his biography, calls Nicolas Sarkozy a heavy worker, a workaholic who never rests (BBC News).
His presidency is also marked by the world economic crisis. However, France is in the list of the countries that suffered the least from the global economic recession.
In 2007, Sarkozy and his government developed own economy stimulus package, which included a lot of reforms such as cutting taxes, reducing the public sector, and others. On November 2008, Sarkozy established special fund that possessed 20 billion Euros and was aimed to help banks and companies to overcome the crisis.
Immigration policy turned into one of the main focuses for Mr. Sarkozy, and even split opinions in France. Once, Nicolas Sarkozy called the young people from the Paris suburbs “rabble”, which definitely caused an ambiguous reaction in the society and criticism (BBC News).
Yet, Mr. Sarkozy is not actually against immigrants. He just wants them to be skillful workers and appreciate values in the country where they want to work and live, and come to France legally. Not a bad policy!
President Sarkozy’s Foreign Policy
What specific achievements of the President Sarkozy on the international scene should be discussed?
First, it should be mentioned that Nicolas Sarkozy is considered to be a pro-Atlantic politician. In 2008, the President Sarkozy announced his decision about French reintegration with NATO. For some politicians and even ordinary people, it was rather a shocking claim, because France in these terms was a special country. It was a long time ago when according to De Gaulle’s decision France left this military block (Kesselman, Krieger, Joseph 128).
These days, France has some special relations with Russia, which is not supported in the United States, but it seems like this does not make the President Sarkozy worried too much. First, Sarkozy played rather an important role in the conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008.
Since those times, relations between two countries flourished even more. One of the recent examples that can prove this was a helicopter carrier Mistral, which France sold Russians.
By the way, reaction of the United States to this event was definitely negative, but it seems like France did not care much. Generally, such a position is clear. Both countries, and France in particular, gained their benefit, and not only from the economic point of view.
What about Sarkozy’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan? From the very first days and till the present time, Nicolas Sarkozy is against the war in Iraq. However, in 2008 he agreed to send French troops to Afghanistan so that to demonstrate France is still the NATO’s ally.
To sum everything up, President Sarkozy acts according with French interests most of the times, no matter what his international partners may think.
Now, let me answer the main question of this essay. Do the presidents of the United States and France have something in common? Are they partners?
I believe that both presidents, although may be not very popular in their countries, try to do a lot in order to support economies, people, ideals, and interests of their countries.
The President Obama has just started his presidency (Dinan 1). The President Sarkozy has two more years to finish what he has started and to do more for France. In both countries, two presidents have opponents as well as those who support their initiatives and help achieve goals.
Yet, I should say that relations between two presidents are not always defined as “partnership”. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy’s views on the reduction of nuclear weapons are very different from those that the President Obama has. Nicolas Sarkozy has a very strong position on this issue and claimed that France is not going to reduce its strategic weapons.
On the one hand, it may sound quite irresponsibly. On the other hand, the President Sarkozy again acts according to the interests of his country. He realizes that even if the United States gets rid of the part of their nukes, they will still have enough to protect themselves.
I should still mention that both presidents have strong opinions about Iran and its nuclear policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is one of the biggest advocates as well as the President Obama for special sanctions that should be imposed on Iran.
Bibliography
Dinan, Stephen. “Obama’s Budget Doubles Deficit in 10 Years”. Washington Times 20 Mar. 2009: 1+.
“Employment Situation Summary”. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Official Website. Mar. 2010.
Kesselman, Mark, Krieger, Joel, Joseph, William A. Introduction to Comparative Politics: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas. Boston: Wodsworth, 2007-201.
“Profile: Nicolas Sarkozy”. BBC News, Official Website. 26 Jul. 2009.
Apart from the constitution, one important area where several leaders differ is in the area of the role of government to its citizenry. In this regard, opinions have been divided from those on the extreme ends of the divide to those treading the middle ground. William Graham is one such voice who believed that the government is bad for the freedom of the American citizens.
A contrary opinion was given by Woodrow Wilson who did not just believe in the nobility of a government but demonstrated through creation of strong institutions that indeed the government has a role to play in chatting forward the citizen’s agenda.
In this work, I take the view that while government has at time proven to be the very burden, the citizens need to be protected from, when run in line with the constitution and with a series of critical checks and balances, the government can be a masterful servant of the people (Dolbeare and Cummings, 2010).
The American history is rich on philosophies and thoughts on modes of governance. The past is an embodiment of several differing points of view concerning governance and other related policy issues.
It is indeed a study in intrigues looking at the great minds that determined the American thought process. In essence, America has a great constitution almost paralleled by none all over the world. It must truly be the emergence of these different opinions that informed the cautious, yet generous give and take that characterized the constitutionalism process.
This is indeed was the view shared by our fore fathers and the great founders of our nation as envisaged in the constitution. The truth is that the founders of our great nation did not liberate us to leave the citizens to the whims of the raging winds of developing ideas. Much as our collective responsibility and personal responsibility has been the pillars of our great state.
We remain great because of a sense of unity. There is no other means of uniting American citizens more than under one national flag. It is the evidence of the philosophy of democracy as a government of the people by the people for the people (Dolbeare and Cummings, 2010).
It is our action as a united government that has enabled America to stand firm during and after periods of great challenges and peril. In the face of a growing threat from the Soviet Union and the worst depression America has ever had, it was the rallying of the American people through the brave acts of the federal government that President Reagan achieved a turnaround of the economy.
In 2013, in Obama’s second inauguration, the circumstances were almost as similar as those of the early 1980s. His appeal to the American citizens to rise up and reclaim their place in the world has contributed to the positive signs of recovery currently being witnessed (Obama, 2013).
Even though William Graham had been vehement in his tearing into the idea of democracy and equality among the American citizenry, his appeal does not make sense in the face of the very foundations of the constitution. If we have to revert the ideals embodied in the American constitution, then we must agree that the people may not always be right but we must protect that individual right to be different on a foundation of equality.
It is important though that a government must be able to take care of its citizens. In the absence of strong controls, governments have a tendency to be plutocratic and such a stance may erode the very benefits governments are supposed to protect (Dolbeare and Cummings, 2010).
References
Dolbeare, K.M., & Cummings, M. S. (2010). American Political Thought (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
The United States President Obama second term which started January 2013
The United States president Barrack Obama was sworn in for second term on 20 January the year 2013. There was a ceremony for all people before the president could begin his duties during the second term in office.
The theme of the occasion was having faith in the future of America and uniting people from all races without favor or discrimination. According to the speech of president Obama, God gives freedom and it is the responsibility of people to secure it all the time. 1There were laws for combating climate change, reforms of immigrations as well as controlling guns.
The president said that human rights are very important and there should be no discrimination based on gender or race. Promotion of democracy should be considered where the poor need to be assured that there is hope as well as taking care of the sick people. The president said that the existing alliances would remain strong; there would be recovery of the economy and end war so that the world may remain peaceful.
The preservation of freedom of individuals involves collective action. The president said that the decision was upon the people of the United States and they could not delay. This was the right time for action without engaging in politics that were not beneficial. The people of America are supposed to be treated equally in order to ensure that they work together for the success of the whole nation.
The journey could not be completed if the law ignored the gay brothers as well as sisters. The president said that there was inequality of wealth where some people are rich while others struggle to make it in life. 2The children who are born in poor families should have equal chance to succeed like any other child.
His role as the manager of the economy
President Obama is the leader who is concerned with unemployment, making profit by businesspersons and an economic adviser. His main aim is to ensure that the country is running so that it can prosper now and in future. When many citizens of America lost jobs, Obama tried to get solution in order to save them from poverty where he proposed credits on tax to companies that were willing to provide employment to the United States citizens.
This made the country have large amount of debt and tax cuts were pulled for more than sixty million people who were billionaires to increase the money they pay so that the economy can have balanced rate. 3President Obama wanted to take care of people who were not employed during the time they lost jobs so that they do not suffer because of poverty.
President Obama is credited for managing the economy because of his realization that the taxable amount should depend on the amount of income of the individuals. The people with ability to pay should pay more and those who are not able to pay should pay less so that everybody is equal. He extended the unemployment period so that those who were not employed could get job of their choice according to the qualifications. President Obama advocates free market, which is dynamic so that the economy is secure through innovation.
President Obama ensures that employees have a choice to act freely where there is a bill with penalties in case of violations of labor. There was minimum wage for employees depending on the number of hours worked so that the salary and wages paid were according to the amount of work done.
The president favored equal pay for all gender where the act of equal payment was improved. The private schools were not allowed to undermine public schools where he offered funding to students who completed high school. The teachers pay was increased in order to motivate them to offer quality education to all students. 4President Obama proposed decrease in oil consumption in the United States of America in order to reduce imports and encourage alternative sources of energy.
What he had accomplished
President Barak Obama phased out all weapons that were outdated and brought other weapons to end fraud. The economy improved under the leadership of president Obama through a recovery program and taxpayers were able to know how the taxes were utilized after collection. 5The recession period made more than 800,000 people loose jobs when President Obama came to power but after one year more than 2.1 million people were employed, which led to economic growth.
President Obama managed to complete the rescue plan for banks and recovered money that had been lost. He made houses affordable through the plan for refinancing where the United States Citizens owned houses that they were able to pay with the disposable income. He came up with means of detecting fraud through investigation by the federal government where all those involved in fraud were prosecuted.
The financial systems were protected from loss of funds, which prevented economic meltdown in all sectors of the economy. The amount of money spent in infrastructure was increased after it had been neglected for many years.6 The recovery program led to employment of more than 300,000 people in the education system that would have lacked job opportunities.
What he is working to accomplish in the role in his second term
President Obama believe that United States of America will Prosper and have freedom through collective action. The debt ceiling should not be affected by politics so that economic growth can be achieved. Tax policies will be implemented to solve the problem of income inequality where the wealthiest people in the society will pay more taxes.
The people should come up with new ways of overcoming the new challenges that arise in order to preserve the freedom of all individuals. The people of the United States of America should come together to improve the quality of education, build better roads, train workers as well as provide security all the time.
President Obama said that there could not be division of people who had different interests as well as opposing views. The people of America should enjoy freedom all the time regardless of their wealth or social status. The change in climate, which is a major threat in the nation, is addressed as well as ensuring the sources of energy are sustainable.
The United States of America will find solution to the differences it has with neighboring nations in order to maintain peace, love and unity among all citizens. 7America will continue to form alliances with other nations and have institutions that will ensure that there is solution to the crisis in order to remain peaceful.
Bibliography
Blinder, Alan. After the Music Stopped. The Financial Crisis, the Response and the Work Ahead. New York: The Penguin Press, 2013.
Carroll, Richard. The President as Economist. Scoring Economic Performance from Harry Truman to Barrack Obama. New York: Amazon, 2012.
Daron, Acemoglu, and Robinson James. Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Paperback, 2013.
The current U.S. President, Barrack Obama, gave a 61-minute State of the Union Address on January 25, 2011 to Congress that focused on the main challenges that are facing the country in this decade. Among the notable issues that the President addressed in the speech were the country’s economic policy, development and employment issues.
In the annual speech, the President focused mainly on domestic issues, especially issues of the economy. He said that America has to be more competitive in the global economy and he suggested a number of reforms within the government that ought to be implemented.
Mr. Obama called for more investment in education, infrastructure and scientific innovation that would ensure that the country out-innovates, out-educates, and out-build’s the rest of the world. In the speech, the President suggested revenue and savings plans that should be adopted.
These are a partial government spending freeze that is projected to save up to $400 billion over the next ten years, removal of billions in tax breaks for oil companies, decrease in health care costs, including Medicare and Medicaid, reform for Social Security, merging, consolidating, and reorganizing the activities of the federal government, and lowering of corporate tax rate.
In order to reduce further the expenses of the Americans, the president promised to provide eighty percent of Americans with high-speed rail access within the next twenty-five years, ensure that one million electric vehicles are available in five years, increase the source of the country’s energy to clean-energy sources by 2035, and encourage investments in biomedical research and information technology.
In illustrating the country’s economic recovery, Mr. Obama employed his most optimistic language. “Now we are poised for progress,” said Obama. “Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up.
The economy is growing again” (Obama, para.10). However, despite the economic growth, the president acknowledged that many American citizens still lack jobs and that more attention need to be focused on creating job opportunities for the citizens of the country. Mr. Obama reminded his listeners that years ago, finding a good job was not as difficult as it is now since competition for the opportunities was low.
However, nowadays, getting the same opportunities is more difficult because of technological improvements that have changed the way people live, work, and do business. Nonetheless, the president said that these should not impair the ability of Americans to get jobs since “no country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs and America is the home of the world’s best colleges and universities” (Obama, para. 17).
This year’s State of the Union Address laid out the policy agenda of the Obama administration to bring reforms in the country for the next year. Focusing mainly on domestic economic issues, the speech was an attempt to shape the national political narrative to the advantage of the president in tackling the problems facing the country, considering his cratering poll numbers.
Mr. Obama admitted that the previous year was a failure since less effort was focused on creating jobs and building the economy. However, through the speech, the president aims to hit the reset button and spearhead economic reforms in the country.
Obama stirred different opinions during his candidacy and after becoming the president. President Obama’s foreign policy went through various transformations, from an initial assurance of changes to situations of increasing optimism to practical realism.
During his campaign, candidate Obama had made a promise that change would occur in America’s foreign policy and restore the moral basis of how America interacts with the rest of the world. One of his promises with regard to foreign policy was to create better relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Thus, Obama wanted to establish a foreign policy to change how the U.S. was perceived by the Muslim world and improve the relations. The Bush administration had tried to deal with this issue without success. This was a period when the U.S. had a preference for war rather than diplomacy and peace when dealing with anti-Americanism in the Muslim world (Rajaee & Miller, 2012).
There are various American foreign policy (AFP) logics that were evident in Obama’s behaviour during his candidacy and after clinching the presidency. One of the logics was how the U.S. views the rest of the world with regard to its national interests. Logic also relied on ethical considerations and morality, strategies in foreign policies, and how power is considered depending on its nature and understanding.
One of the logics that describe President Obama’s administration is liberalism. President Obama wanted to initiate change in America’s foreign policy to seek expansion of liberty around the world after taking office.
This was evident from Obama’s intention to ensure that the American foreign policy considered international law during its application. For Obama, it is a moral duty for the U.S. to ensure that they promote liberty around the world (Rajaee & Miller, 2012).
Free trade is an important aspect under liberalism. Liberalism is within the U.S. national interest for it to exist within a free trade world economy. It can be seen that the U.S. depends on other countries for its imports. Thus, the U.S. will only consider other countries where it is assured of cheap labour. Under liberalism, the U.S. considers political and civil rights as important.
These important factors can facilitate peaceful co-existence within the world. In pre-2008, the U.S. had a preference towards Israel than Palestine. Obama was aware of the fact that Palestine had been ignored.
Thus, in line with ensuring liberty, President Obama saw the need to assist Palestine as well (Rajaee & Miller, 2012). He stated that, “… humiliation Palestine faces is intolerable.” For him, the political rights of Palestine are important and should be considered within the U.S. foreign policy.
President Obama maintained a tough stance on Israel during his first year in office. His government also wanted Israel to withdraw from West Bank and Gaza. President Obama’s first decision after taking office involved visiting the Muslim countries. This was done to assure them that the U.S. was not at war with Islam or the Arab world. This was an important strategy for the U.S. to begin applying its foreign policy.
Although both Obama and Bush tried to solve the issues that existed in the Middle East, President Obama used a new strategy that was seen as advantageous in comparison to the policy applied during the Bush administration. President Obama was successful initially, but his initiatives failed and were abandoned in the long run (Rajaee & Miller, 2012).
President Obama enjoyed support from Muslims during his initial years in office, but views about his policies began to change during his third year in office because some of the promises made that affected Muslim countries had not been delivered. One issue that led to the fading trust in Obama’s administration is that he had failed to establish peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
The American foreign policy during Obama’s first term was also characterized by liberal internationalism. This was based on the realization that Obama’s administration could not work alone without the assistance of other states in the world. One such problem was the al-Qaeda, which has an international impact.
With the growing threats of terrorism, it became important for the U.S. to work together with other countries to solve this problem. This logic considered military power as unnecessary. Thus, Obama’s administration intended to withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq.
President Obama’s foreign policies were regarded as effective, although they did not result in significant changes on how the Muslim world viewed the U.S. Thus, his policies only avoided an increase in negative feelings that the Muslim world would have towards the U.S.
A survey carried out between 2009 and 2010 showed that Muslims viewed Israel as the biggest threat to Arabs, followed by the United States. Thus, solving the issues with Muslims would be a difficult task for Obama.
Isolationism was also among the logics evident in the American foreign policy. This logic was based on the belief that the U.S. society would be negatively affected if it took part in foreign matters. President Obama’s administration had begun to reduce its influence in Middle Eastern states.
This was attributed to the de-Americanization of the Middle East. Thus, isolationism was seen as a preference for the larger American citizenry. A few politicians also share this belief. Thus, during Obama’s presidency he has tried to meet the wishes of the public with regard to isolationism.
The U.S. began to reduce its influence within the Middle East following the withdrawal of the military in Iraq and reduction of troops in Afghanistan. In many cases, the presence of its security forces was only to ensure national security to curb the threat of terrorism. Isolationism had also been seen in Obama’s promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Hegemony was also evident, where the U.S. maintained close ties with Israel for the benefit of its national interests. This can be seen in President Obama’s statement that, “Those who threaten Israel threaten us.” Initially, Obama wanted to establish a peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine, but the foreign policy had to go through changes to ensure its hegemony.
For instance, the U.S. made an agreement to provide aid to Israel at the cost of $30 billion. In effect, this would ensure that Israel had a military advantage (Rajaee & Miller, 2012). Thus, the policy is characterized by the tendency to have extensive power when it comes to matters that are occurring abroad.
This can be seen in the case of Israel whereby the U.S. will only interact with other Arab countries if Hamas retains its power. Thus, the US has influence on many countries abroad, a situation that has existed for a long time. Obama’s administration can be compared to Bush’s administration as far as hegemony is concerned.
Hegemony is also seen in America’s over reliance on international affairs. Obama’s foreign policies went ahead to establish interest of the U.S. abroad. These were matters ranging from politics to economic issues. Terrorism and war on Iraq were international matters that the U.S. considered important and in need of a solution.
The U.S. is also guided by altruistic policies. Thus, many of its policies are based on the idea that they are intended to establish world peace and security. For instance, the war on terrorism is seen as a decision that will be for the benefit of all countries within the international system.
There exists a difference in behaviour and logic between pre-2008 and post-2008 Obama, although the difference is minimal because Obama made only a few changes. The opinion that the U.S. shared about the Muslim world was still the same. President Obama became popular within the Muslim worked because of his promises to establish a different foreign policy in comparison to what was applied by his predecessor.
It is for this reason that the Arabs were seen to have the highest confidence in Obama in early 2009, just after his election. This confidence began to fade in the preceding years as Arabs realized that many of the changes promised by the President were not occurring.
Candidate Obama was considered as a leader who would bring change in the U.S. He was regarded as a unifying force, reaching both to America’s foreign enemies and to opponents at home. His policies were seen as a correction to all issues that arose during the Bush administration.
Obama was also able to awaken political responsibility in America. Thus, he had a greater influence on international matters based on diplomacy after taking office in comparison to the pre-2008 period.
Realism is also logic that can be seen in the U.S. foreign policy. Realism is whereby the state seeks to retain a powerful role within world affairs. In the case of the U.S., Obama’s administration established policies to ensure it had significant influence within the Middle East.
This was done through its ally, Israel, to facilitate security within the region. States also use international bodies as instruments to stamp their authority. In the case of the U.S., President Obama intended to use the United Nations (U.N.) in defending Israel (Rajaee & Miller, 2012).
Realism as logic explains the U.S. foreign policy behaviour on why it tries to prevent the rise of other powerful states. The U.S. has gone through trouble to protect Israel, which is strategically located in the Middle East. Being a powerful country, the U.S. still wants to increase its strength and prevent the rise of other powerful states within the Middle East.
Israel is located in a region that ensures the U.S. controls the various states in the Middle East. Thus, the best strategy for the U.S. is to attract more allies and resources. It is for this reason that Obama’s administration is at the forefront in establishing diplomatic ties with the U.S. enemies abroad. This is important in attracting more allies.
In conclusion, the U.S. foreign policy is characterized by various differences when the Obama administration and the Bush administration are considered. In Obama’s case, his initial days in office were characterized by improved international relations, especially in the Middle East. This was the case for some time, until Arabs became dissatisfied that President Obama did not fulfil his promises.
References
Rajaee, B. M., & Miller, M. J. (2012). National security under the Obama administration. 1st ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
President Barrack Obama’s swearing in January 2013 marked the beginning of his second and last term as the president of the United States of America. As the president and the chief executive of the United States, President Obama, under the federal constitution, is granted the powers to execute the laws, to appoint key federal officials and to grant pardons as well as reprieves.
The president’s decision-making is based on the information obtained from the heads of divisions and departments. It is common for US presidents to enter office with an agenda, whether in the second or last terms of the tenure.
The agenda can be broad and sometimes lumped into more clear categories. In most cases, while democrats attempt to expand social services, republicans normally focus on narrowing government spending.
Within the short period president Obama has been in his final term as the president and CEO, he has executed his duties in these capacities, which are worth discussion. Arguably, it appears that President Obama’s agenda as America’s Chief executive in the next four years are based on his promises prior to 2008 general elections are still in his agenda, although much remains to be seen of his tenure.
As the US chief executive, president Obama has started with significant changes in his administration, as witnessed by his recent appointments. Although he has attempted to focus focusing his appointments based on qualifications and experience, it is quite evident that his focus has leaned much towards bureaucracy, given that most of his state officers are actually technocrats with strong bureaucratic experience.
First, President Obama’s first and most significant role as the American CEO in his second term is the appointment of John Kerry as his Secretary of State. On January 29, few days after Obama’s inauguration as the president for the second term, John Kerry was appointed as the new secretary of state, replacing Hillary Clinton.
The technocrat is not only a Veteran in the Vietnam War, but also an experienced individual in international affairs and a former Senator for Massachusetts. In addition, he sits in a number of committees, including small business, senate finance and commerce.1
President Obama has further shown his role as the Chief executive of the US by making other appointments, including that of technocrat Jack Lew as the secretary of the treasury, Chuck Hagel as the secretary for defense and other cabinet appointments.
Moreover, it is worth noting that Obama has used his powers to replace and/or transfer a number of appointees in his cabinet at his own will. For instance, the former secretary of defense, Leon Panetta, has been replaced with Chuck Hagel, while Jack Lew replaces Timothy Geithner in the office of the secretary of treasury.
Secondly, president Obama has executed his powers vested on him by the federal constitution by taking steps to galvanize the American economy through uplifting of the middle class. Right from his inaugural speech, Obama has focused on a plan centered on the middle class as the “engine of growth”, which aims at investing heavily in national education, manufacturing and clean energy.2
In addition, on 5 February 2013, few days after his inauguration, President Obama started by meeting CEOs of leading organizations in the United States. These included CEOs of Goldman Sachs Group, Yahoo and 10 other corporations.3 The aim is to reduce deficit as well as immigration into the United States from a number of poorly developed nations, especially in Latin American and Mexico.
To ensure this is done, President Obama shuttered a job council he had previously set up as an advisory organ on economic issues. This was within his constitution powers to hire and fire advisors on certain issues such as social affairs, military and the economy.
In fact, the president is seeking to reform the immigration laws in order to contain deficit and improve the economy, with the long-term aim of achieving a strong economy driven by the middle class rather than large corporations.
It is also worth noting that as the Chief executive of the United States, the president bears the important role of dealing with international affairs, negotiating business and other issues with foreign nations or regional organizations and even signing agreements on behalf of the people of the United States of America.
As such, within the first few weeks of his second term, President Obama is already executing his powers bestowed on him by the federal constitution. For instance, he is already negotiating with the 27-member states of the European Union for a free trade agreement, with special focus on Britain, France and Germany.
The aim is to ensure that American goods find their way, with ease, into the European markets, considering that the European Union is the largest and most developed regional market in the world.
Secondly, this is an attempt by the president to use his constitutional powers, as the federal Chief Executive, to negotiate a deal that will see American companies and individuals deal directly and freely with their European counterparts and more important, deal with the problem posed by the aggressive market strategies used by China and Chinese companies.
It is also worth noting that it is the role of the present of the United States, as the chief executive, to plan on the federal budget. Using these powers, present Obama, in his second term, is already considering a budget that will be friendlier to the middle class, especially in regards to job creation and reduction in deficit. This issue was top on the agenda in the meeting between the president and the CEOs from the 12 different companies in February.
To further reduce spending, the president has taken initiatives, which are currently in progress, to ensure that military spending is reduced, while health spending increases significantly. As the country’s chief executive, the president has embarked on a program to reduce the number of American troops in foreign nations, particularly Afghanistan.
On February 12, a few weeks after his inauguration, the president announced a gradual withdrawal of more than 34,000 troops from Afghanistan, which has already started.
A part from reducing the presence of American military in foreign nations like Afghanistan, the step is an indication of the president’s ability to use the constitutional powers as the country’s chief executive in an effort to reduce foreign spending and instead increase domestic spending.
It is also within this effort that the president, just after his inauguration as the president for the second term, signed an agreement with the President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on behalf of the people of America. In this agreement, Americans will reduce their spending on Afghani security, leaving much of the security issues and responsibilities on the hands of the Afghani police and military.
As the country’s CEO, the president has the powers and responsibilities of taking care of the American environment in order to ensure that every American citizen enjoys a good environment free from pollution. However, it is important to note that this is not possible without the involvement of other nations, given that nations in the world share the same natural environment.
In this context, the president has involved Russia in negotiating for New START Treaty. The aim of this agreement is to limit deployment of nuclear arsenals starting right after the agreement and reducing these arsenals by 1,550 by the end of 2018.4 It has also been announced that the President is already negotiating with Russia in an effort to seek further reductions in the number of nuclear arsenals each country has.
Finally, the president has already announced his efforts to increase the strength of the nation’s boarder security. For instance, starting this February, the President has started deploying a number of security and intelligent personnel and facilities to the Mexican boarder in order to ensure real immigration reforms promised in 2008, but did not actually take place during his first term as the president and chief executive of the United States.5 This is an indication of how the president can utilize his constitutional powers as the nation’s chief executive.
From the above analysis, it is clear that President Obama, in his first few weeks in office as the country’s CEO, has taken a number of steps to ensure that security, spending and foreign involvement is reduced, while national and social affairs receive boosting to improve the lives of the middle and lower class citizens.
However, it is equally clear that President Obama’s agenda as America’s Chief executive in the next four years is based on his promises prior to 2008 general elections are still in his agenda, although much remains to be seen of his tenure.
Bibliography
Agyeman-Fisher, Abena. “NewsOne Breaks Down President’s Plans For Black Community In Second Term.” NewsOne (Washington, DC), Jan. 29, 2013.
Cohen, Ariel. “U.S. Policy on Russia for Obama’s Second Term.” Heritage (New York, NY), Feb. 2, 2013.
Korb, Lawrence. “President Obama’s Commitment to Veterans Must Remain a Second-Term Priority.” American Progress (Springfield, MA), Feb. 13, 2013.
Mason, Jeff. “Obama to meet with Goldman’s Blankfein, other CEOs Tuesday.” Reuters (Washington, DC), Feb. 4, 2013.
McGreal, Chris. Obama’s second term begins in earnest as he takes his pitch to the people.” The Guardian (London, UK), Feb. 14, 2013.
Footnotes
1 Chris, McGreal, “Obama’s second term begins in earnest as he takes his pitch to the people,” The Guardian (London, UK), Feb. 14, 2013.
2 Abena Agyeman-Fisher, “NewsOne Breaks Down President’s Plans For Black Community In Second Term,” NewsOne (Washington, DC), Jan. 29, 2013.
3 Jeff Mason, “Obama to meet with Goldman’s Blankfein, other CEOs Tuesday,” Reuters (Washington, DC), Feb. 4, 2013.
4 Ariel Cohen, “U.S. Policy on Russia for Obama’s Second Term,” Heritage (New York, NY), Feb. 2, 2013.
5 Lawrence, Korb, “President Obama’s Commitment to Veterans Must Remain a Second-Term Priority,” American Progress (Springfield, MA), Feb. 13, 2013.
The Postmaster General, in a prepared testimony that he is to deliver to the Congress, has stated that the Postal Service is in danger of insolvency. Mr. Patrick Donahoe stressed that without intervention by the Congress or express facilitation of needed funds by your administration, the Postal Service will most likely go under (Courson, 2011).
Reasons for the Dwindling Revenues of the Postal Service
Over the past few years, the Postal Service has been unable to make profits, or even break even due to a number of factors. Firstly, the rise in the use of email as the means of choice for personal and business correspondence amongst Americans has reduced a critical revenue source in mail delivery. Many other transactions that were previously done through postal deliveries are also being carried out over the Internet, depriving the Postal service another source of revenue.
More critically, the Postal Service has had its operations, and cash flow limited by the law passed by the Congress in 2006 requiring the Postal Service to create and sustain a health care fund for future retirees. Contributions to this fund have severely harmed the Postal Service’s cash flow.
These mandatory payments, coupled with reduced revenues have contributed to the lack of operational funds for the Postal Service. Currently, much of the revenue earned by the postal service is used for payment of salaries, wages and other recurrent expenditures. Mr. Donahoe states that about 80% of revenue is used for recurrent expenses. Such high operating costs portend a bleak future for the Postal Service, especially as alternative means of correspondence such as email and text messages gain prominence.
The Postal Service also has a vast labor force that the corporation is finding increasingly difficult to sustain. According to the Postmaster General, in order for the Postal Service to make profits or even barely break even within 5 years, about 200,000 employees in career positions will have to be laid off.
Solutions
In order that the Postal Service may continue to offer its services in the face of these presented odds, Mr. Donahoe proposes a number of solutions, some of which will require direct intervention by your office. In spite of the dwindling revenues and less income options, the Postal Service is still a vital entity in the daily operations of American families, institutions and companies.
By delivering parcels and other pertinent documents for which electronic transport is impossible, the postal service continues to offer a service critical to the named entities. Your office should thus facilitate these solutions proposed by the Postmaster General aimed at preventing insolvency.
Firstly, the small post offices that are not self-sustaining should be closed or have their services merged with larger, more viable Postal Service offices. Secondly, your office – in concert with your party – should sponsor a bill that will free the operations of the Postal Service from the law passed by congress in 2006. In order to be able to operate within its means, the Postal Service should be allowed to create and maintain its own appropriate health care and retirement benefit schemes that fit within its narrow budgetary boundaries.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The concerns invoked by the Postmaster General and the relevant senate committee looking into the crisis at the Postal Service require your urgent attention. Not only is it a vital part of the American society’s existence about to go under, but also many jobs are at risk. Your facilitation of the suggested solutions will be highly welcome.
The ethics, legality and politics surrounding armed intervention for humanitarian purposes have proved to be among the key theoretical and practical controversies facing governments in the past few decades.
At the end of the twentieth century, a number of names: Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo were catchy words in the international milieu of diplomacy. In the millennium, the problem is far from abating. This research is an in-depth analysis of the latest controversies in the international scene regarding international relations and humanitarian interventions with reference to the Libyan unrest.
The research starts with an exploration of the situation on the ground as of March 19. Thereafter, realism theory of international relations is explained as the most appropriate theory that applies to the Libyan case. Later, humanitarian intervention is discussed, especially concerning its legality. Finally, a conclusion, which is a recap of the thesis developed in the paper, is restated.
Introduction
Political change in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt aided in bringing ensuing Libya reform debates to a climax in January and early February 2011. In the preceding years, leading Libyans had staked out a wide array of positions about the needed extent and pace of reform.
The moves were facilitated by competition for influence and opportunity under the observant eye of the hard-liners affiliated to the enigmatic leader of Libya’s 1969 revolution, Muammar al Qadhafi. Qhadafi has, for a long time insisted that he holds no official government position (Blanchard, 2011).
However, by all means, he maintained his hold on critical authority until of late as the ‘reference point’ for Libya’s multifaceted political structure. In contrast, that system cited ‘popular authority’, as its fundamental principle and organizing concept while at the same denying Libyans the most crucial political rights.
Tribal relations and political dynamics especially eastern regional resentments also influenced Libyan politics. Through an in-depth review on a number of literatures on international relations theory and humanitarian intervention, this research paper finds that Qadhafi and the opposition groups were justified in their attacks to further their individual interest. At the same time, the paper also holds that the U.S. and NATO were justified in their intervention, in the Libyan unrest.
Situation on the ground in Libya as at 19 March 2011
The present crisis in Libya began in mid-February 2011. It was triggered by several events in Benghazi and other eastern cities that hurriedly got out of Qhadafi’s power. Libyan opposition groups had called for a ‘day of rage’ on February 17. This was meant as tribute to protests that took place in the past five years.
Nevertheless, local protests had broken before the scheduled national protests. On February 15 and 16, Libyan authorities deployed force to contain small protests (Blanchard, 2011). The authorities demanded that police had to release a lawful advocate for victims of a past crackdown who had been arrested. During the incident, several protesters were killed. During the funeral of the protesters, conflicts arose when government authorities reportedly fired live ammo.
The Qhadafi government loosened its stand on Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism. This led to the lifting of most international sanctions between 2003 and 2004. This was followed by economic growth due to increased sales in oil. The U.S. business rejuvenated amidst ensued U.S.-Libyan tension over terrorism concerns.
The latter were resolved in 2008. During this time of international reengagement, political change in Libya remained indefinable and deceptive. Some observers posited that Qhadafi enthusiasts’ suppression of the opposition had faded. This is because Libya’s international rehabilitation coincided with endeavors by some pragmatists to maneuver within ‘red lines’ (Blanchard, 2011).
The shifting direction of those red lines had been progressively entangling reformers in the events preceding the eruption of the fresh unrest that saw the ousting of Qhadafi. Some observers also welcomed government reconciliation with imprisoned Islamist militants, as well as the return of some exiled opposition figures.
The government was inactive to calls for guarantees of fundamental political rights and the drafting of the new constitution. These calls hinted to a lack of consensus or outright opposition to significant reforms among leading officials (Blanchard, 2011).
In the ensuing chaos, Libyan security forces reportedly opened fire with heavy weaponry on protesters. In addition, opposing groups directly confronted armed personnel as they overran a number of security facilities. There was a looming popular control over eastern cities while considerable
unrest ensued in other regions. Many military officers and their units, as well as civilian officials, left Qhadafi due to the then disorganized and vague opposition. On the other hand, Qhadafi and his supporters denounced their opponents as terrorists. Nevertheless, Qhadafi maintained control over the capital, Tripoli, amidst an international outcry. His presence was also felt in other cities courtesy of family-led security forces and regime supporters (Blanchard, 2011).
On March 17, the Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted. The move was met with ecstasy by the ensuing opposition in Libya. This was in spite of the their grim security situation, as well as clear inability to separately fend off better organized ground forces faithful to Muammar al Qadhafi. Between March 10 and March 17, there was a reversal in the opposition’s fortunes and a dramatic shift in vigor in favor of Qadhafi (Blanchard, 2011).
This increased regional and international deliberations on potential intervention. At the same time, limited air operations by Qadhafi supporters ensued while the Colonel’s forces commenced an assault on the main opposition base in Benghazi. The no-fly and civilian protection provisions of the Resolution 1973 authorized military intervention. This move had been eagerly anticipated by the careworn opposition in order to ease the pressure on their ranks.
On March 18, the U.S. President Obama drew invariable demands to Qadhafi and his government to end violence. He indicated that the U.S. was ready to act militarily as part of a coalition to implement Resolution 1973 hence protecting Libyan civilians. In response, Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa stated that Qadhafi’s government had been forced to accept the Security Council resolution that allowed the use of force to protect the civilian population.
He also said that Libya’s government had agreed to an urgent armistice and the stoppage of all armed operations. Despite Kusa’s claim, Libyan military ground operations held areas continued against violation of cease-fire pledges. As such, humanitarian intervention began on March 19 (Blanchard, 2011).
The days following March 19 were characterized by sea-launched cruise missile attacks and air strikes targeting Libyan air defenses, air forces, command and control infrastructure, and ground forces engaged in attacks on civilians. These attacks also covered south of the opposition, which is the stronghold of Benghazi.
By March 28, U.S and coalition officials reported that coalition military operations had destroyed the ability of Libyan military to control Libyan airspace. The no-fly zone called for in Resolution 1973 had been implemented. Coalition attacks went on against those supporters of operations by Libyan military units. In addition, coalition officials continued to reiterate their calls for Libyan government forces to surrender amidst missile and air strikes of relentless frequency and intensity.
On a weekend in March 26, opposition forces rejuvenated their moves westward in line with coalition air strikes against Libyan government forces in Ajdabiyah. They captured the coastal cities of Burayqah and Ra’s Lanuf.
The operations were described by press reports and U.S. military briefings as operations of relatively lightly armed and disorganized volunteer opposition forces that had surged westward from their initially threatened bases in eastern Libya. The new operations extended to cover areas they originally controlled such as the city of Sirte, which is the birthplace of Muammar al Qadhafi (Blanchard, 2011).
It was reported that government forces prepared an organized defense of Sirte with reports suggesting that pro-Qadhafi forces continued to focus on civilians and opposition volunteers in certain urban regions such as Misurata and Az Zintan. Despite of these records, there were no accurate and veritable information sources on the strength, leadership, equipment and preparedness of pro and anti-Qadhafi forces available to the public in the early phases of the ensuing unrests.
The rapid developments and the relatively limited presence of international media in Libya saw the imposition of a degree of uncertainty on the latest twists of the conflict drama. Many questions on identities, capabilities, and goals of key players and forces went unanswered in the wake of ongoing coalition operations. Optimistic observers who eagerly waited for the backed up opposition to outdo Qadhafi and his supporters continued to face blows (Blanchard, 2011).
As a result, some even warned of a looming civil war. Despite this pessimism, spokespersons from both sides continued to express optimism in their ability to prevail. Observers from the outside presupposed that air strikes were creating strong disincentives to continued loyalty to Qadhafi. According to opposition leaders, the latent advantages of foreign military intervention could be considered alongside a positive reception of strong nationalist, anti-imperialist sentiments held by many Libyans.
U.S. and Coalition military operations in Libya
U.S. civilian and military leaders, including President Barack Obama termed the U.S and coalition military operations as successfully having achieved limited military goals in support of Resolution 1973. The President insisted that he did not plan to order the use of military force to achieve the political aim of removing Qadhafi from power.
On March 25, U.S. Joint Staff Director Admiral Bill Gortney said that due to the coalition military strikes, Qadhafi lacked defense, hence harbored a declining ability to command and sustain his forces on the ground. His air force could not fly; his warships were stranded in port, while his ammunition was being destroyed (Blanchard, 2011).
In addition, communication towers were being toppled, and his command bunkers rendered useless. On March 28, Gortney updated his assessment by adding that coalition forces had struck the headquarters of the 32nd Brigade regime security unit, which has been under the control of Qadhafi’s son Khamis.
This happened because the unit remained at the vanguard operations against civilians. He also showed that the coalition had struck command and control targets around Qadhafi’s support base, Sirte, on Libya’s central coast. On March 29, coalition strikes allegedly targeted Libyan naval vessels off the coast of Misurata (Carlsnaes, & Simmons, 2002).
The preceding section has discussed the condition of Libya as of March 29. It is time this paper gives the Libyan unrest a critical international perspective. While crucial questions went unanswered about the latent success of the opposition counteroffensive, The Libyan unrest led to a heated debate as far as international relations is concerned.
A number of theories can explain the unrest, which saw the introduction of human rescue intervention. The focus of this paper now shifts to address the different theories that explain international relations. However, by the end of the discussion, the paper will choose one of the theories that can best describe the Libya unrest and the consequential coalition forces intervention.
International relations theories
There are many theories, approaches and models that political scientists have used when researching on international relations. A brief paper cannot do justice to the whole collection of theoretical approaches entrenched in the modern literature. However, this paper will choose only the most relevant ones to the Libyan case. Nevertheless, those elaborated here, coupled with occasional citations of some representative works may prove beneficial to diplomatic historians.
Realism
The first theory to be discussed here is realism. This theory has been the most popular approach to international relations for the last few decades. This is because it was perceived to offer a significant structure for comprehending the fall of the events that succeeded the First World War.
Nevertheless, realists do not comprise a uniform school- at least, not for the moment (Donnely, 2000). This, however, does not mean that they do not share some common beliefs about international relations. To be precise, they hold to five basic beliefs on international relations. The first belief is that the causes and conditions of war are extremely instrumental in international relations. Secondly, they consider the framework of an international system as highly essential.
Realists believe that the lack of a central authority to settle disputes is the salient feature of the contemporary system. This causes the security dilemma. This implies that in a self-help system, a nation’s search for security usually leaves all others in the system ultimately insecure.
This, then, provides a strong incentive for arms race and other kinds of hostile interactions. As such, realists perceive conflict as a natural state of affairs instead of a consequence that can be tied to historical conditions, bad leaders, faulty sociopolitical systems or insufficient international understanding or education (Genest, 2008).
The third belief that realists hold to is that geographical-based groups are the main actors in the international system. Fourthly, realism accepts that state behavior is based on reason.
This belief assumes that states are controlled by the logic of the national interest. The latter is identified in terms of survival, security, power and relative capabilities. National interest fluctuates concerning precise conditions (Donnely, 2000). Nevertheless, the similarity of aims among nations allows the analyst to model the logic of policymakers in their chase of national interests.
Lastly, realists believe that the sate can be perceived as a unitary factor (Genest, 2008). Since the core problems for states are clearly defined by the form of the international system, their actions are a response to external, instead of internal political forces. As one of the realists Stephen Krasner, supposes, the state can be regarded as an independent actor pursuing motives linked to power and the general interest of the society.
Realism has mainly been based on a pessimistic theory of human nature either psychologically or secularly. Egoism and self-interest conduct are not restricted to a few or misguided leaders. They are fundamental to homo politicus, hence, are at the center of a realist theory (Donnely, 2000).
Since the human nature is constant, this theory is inadequate to explain the full range of international relations. This is because human nature explains war and conflict but leaves peace and cooperation unaccounted. As such, modern realists have changed their focus from human nature to the structure of the international system in order to elaborate state behavior (Genest, 2008).
The theory has also been criticized due to its lack of precision, as well as the contradicting manner in which classical realists make use of terms such as power, balance of power, and national interest.
While nations and their leaders reflect and act accordance to interests defined as power (Carlsnaes, & Simmons, 2002), political leaders are urged to exercise discretion and moderation alongside recognizing legal interests of other nations.
As such, power is crucial in classical realism though the relation between virtual power balances and political consequences is usually less than persuasive. This suggests that there is a need to deepen analyses with other variables.
Political culture
The second theory that will be discussed here is political culture. Although its antecedents are dated back to the origins of political science, political culture theory in its present form and version came out of the fall of Weimer democracy and the rise of Nazism.
The theory holds that political culture is the set of subjective orientations to politics in a national population, or a sub-set of a national population. It goes ahead to suppose that political culture has cognitive, effective and evaluative components. This implies that it includes knowledge and beliefs about political reality, feelings regarding politics and commitments to political values (Holsti, 2008).
The content of political culture is the result of childhood socialization, education, media experience and adult experiences with governmental, social and economic performance. The theory holds that political culture influences political and governmental structure and performance. It constraints it but does not determine it.
Generally, political culture theory makes experiential sense out of the French Revolution’s claim that sovereignty is derived from the society rather than the state. As such, there is a presupposition that while states are concerned about power, societies believe in the sense and the response of power. This was remedied later by Michel Foucault, among others, who declared that the society is the true locus of power (Carlsnaes, & Simmons, 2002).
International political culture is fundamentally a multifaceted set of rules about the circumstances for valid rule and international activities. The culture of rulers or governments is viewed as the strong actors in the international system (Holsti, 2008). Political culture legalizes the authority of those seemed to be strong or effectual. It also aids to constitute the conditions for efficacy.
This is because it is via cultural exchanges that human beings recognize and understand experiences concerning the exercise of authority, coming up with propositions about the causes of triumph or failure that may then become reverencing points in the days to come (Genest, 2008).
An international system may show many forms of political legitimacy. Nevertheless, there will always be a common feature whereby ability to rule and to accomplish the external reactions is accepted by other rulers.
This implies that mutual recognition is a fundamental characteristic of sovereignty (Donnely, 2000). Even worldwide political structures have a political culture spelling out the requirements for being considered a lawful actor in the structure. The existence of an overriding form of legal influence, therefore, shows the presence of supremacy in the system.
Liberal theory
The third theory of international theory under discussion in this paper is liberalism. The basic belief shared by all Liberals is that states are entrenched in internal and external civil society.
As such, they are decisively constrained in their endeavors. This belief is divided into three assumptions providing logical micro-foundational assumptions on key players, their motivations, and the problems they encounter (Carlsnaes, & Simmons, 2002).
Many hypotheses can be derived from these suppositions, including assumptions about the effects of democracy, nationalism, social inequality, commerce and international institutions on the world of politics. The scope of this paper is limited to explaining the central assumptions of liberal theory.
As hinted earlier, the major presuppositions of the liberal theory is that the main players in politics are members of domestic society. These actors are understood individually or privately constituted groups in the endeavor to enhance their personal interests.
Under precise circumstances of social fragmentations, personal independence and limited competition, individual conduct may be tapped in ways that enhance social order and the progressive improvement of individual welfare (Holsti, 2008). This theory holds that politics is entrenched in a social context, which decisively limits the functions and possibilities of government. The society comes before the state, and internal state-society relations make up the core issue of politics.
According to Liberals, society comprises of personal, human agents with independent interests and identities seeking to form private groups, organizations and preparations to progress their social and political goals. It follows suit that social and political order emanates from the resultant interactions of such individuals, often acting without a conscious format.
The first assumption of the liberal theory leads to three fundamental implications. The first of these is that the most basic determinants of politics lie in society itself. As such, private individuals autonomously calculate individual benefits and losses from foreign policy, popular support for foreign policy incentives, for governmental institutions and, of course, for the survival of the state itself. All these rely mainly on the specific nature of private preferences and their relation to the international niche (Genest, 2008).
The second implication of the first assumption of the liberal theory is that potential for social order and advancement can be realized only via institutions that direct private incentives towards social goals of wealth and security.
The third and last implication of the first assumption of liberalism is that although it assumes conflict, liberalism is a meliorist principle that accepts the likelihood of evolutionary, social growth. Liberals, therefore, believe that under minimal regulation of individual rights, and controlled competition, political and socioeconomic growth towards greater wealth and security is a possibility (Carlsnaes, & Simmons, 2002).
The second main assumption of Liberalism as an international relations theory is that all governments are a representative of some section of domestic society whose interests are found in state rule.
Basing their arguments on the assumption that society comes before the state, liberalism gives a central place to the domestic institutions that link state and society. Liberals view these institutions as the basic mechanisms by which social interests are represented. The state is presupposed to be representative of a section of social groups, even though not all governments represent the whole population.
According to liberalism, the basic relationship between the population and the state is, therefore, a core issue. The third and last assumption of Liberalism is that the behavior of states based on levels of international collaboration reflects the nature and pattern of state preferences. As such, liberals believe that it is state purpose, not state power, which is the most essential ingredient of world politics (Hensel, 2005).
Realism and Libyan unrest
Among all the theories that have been discussed in this paper the theory that best suits the Libyan unrest is realism. This statement can be supported using the fundamentals of the theory. To begin holds that with, the theory, as noted earlier, holds that the deficiency of an essential authority to resolve conflicts is the salient feature of the modern system (Genest, 2008).
In Libya, the unrest was fuelled by the ousting of Colonel Muammar al Qaddafi from power by oppositional groups based in Benghazi. This meant that there was no central authority to settle the disputes that ensued. The Qaddafi supporters and opposition groups continued to clash while civilians suffered in the fire exchanges.
Another reason why realism is the most appropriate theory to explain the Libyan unrest is that the theory holds conflicts are a natural state of affairs instead of a consequence that can be tied to historical conditions, bad leaders, faulty sociopolitical systems or insufficient international understanding or education.
This makes Qaddafi and his supporters justified in their persistent attacks. The Libyan unrest would have been destined to last for long because realism holds that state behavior is based on reason (Hensel, 2005). This belief assumes that states are controlled by the logic of the national interest.
The latter is identified in terms of endurance, safety, power and virtual capabilities. National interest fluctuates concerning precise conditions. Going by this belief, Qaddafi had enough interest to continue clinging to power. The opposition groups were also justified in their attacks, as it was in the national interests that the Qaddafi regime ended as it had done more harm than good.
Humanitarian intervention
The years succeeding the Cold War saw an increase in debate on human rights. This coincided with a growing tendency to see a relationship between violations of human rights and international security. Many changes in international relations since the end of the Cold War have augmented the likelihood of intervention with or without UN Security Council authorization (Coady, 2005).
As such, discussions on humanitarian intervention have been reheated. The way in which the phenomenon of humanitarian intervention is viewed has changed drastically to match with the ever-changing international scene. The focus of this research now shifts to humanitarian intervention and its relationship with international relations.
The concept of humanitarian intervention is linked to other fields like international law, political science, morality and international relations. This is the reason the term is bound to have many definitions and categorizations. According to Adam Roberts, humanitarian intervention is a military intrusion in a state, without the endorsement of its system, and with the aim of preventing far-reaching affliction or death among the population (Roberts, 2003).
Other scholars view the concept as a military intrusion with the aim of defending the lives and wellbeing of overseas civilians. Although these definitions are just a representative of the many definitions that exist for the humanitarian intervention concept, there are several points to note from it.
To begin with, humanitarian intervention uses military force. This is because the parties at war may cause violations, hence the need for a military participation. Another point to note from the definition is that there is an absence of the targeted state’s authorization.
Essentially, this is the central point that makes it a humanitarian intervention, hence differentiating it from peacekeeping. This intervention is usually carried out in scenarios of gross violations caused by the state itself or the state’s collapse. In such extreme circumstances, there is no powerful authority like the case of Somalia (Holzgrefe & Keohane, 2003).
Another characteristic of humanitarian intervention is that it is aimed at aiding non-nationals. In addition, their agency of intervention is usually the UN. After looking at the basic constituents of a humanitarian intervention, it is possible to put down an inclusive definition of humanitarian intervention.
It can be defined as the forcible action by states to prevent or to end gross violations of human rights on behalf of people other than their own nationals, using armed force without the consent of the target government and with or without UN authorization (Welsh, 2004).
This paper hinted earlier that the concept of humanitarian intervention has become controversial by each passing day, a phenomenon occasioned by the dynamic international milieu. This statement draws the focus of this research to the section in which the legality of humanitarian intervention will be examined.
Everyone is obliged to obey the law. The point of disagreement is not obedience but the sources and constituents of law. According to Article 38(I) of the statute of the International Court of Justice, international norms are lawfully binding if they are entrenched in international conventions or international custom. Although this Statute technically binds on the International Court of Justice, it is the broadly accepted authoritative statement of the sources of international law (Holzgrefe & Keohane, 2003).
There are a number of examples of human intervention during and after the Cold War. These include the intervention of India into East Pakistan, Tanzania into Uganda and Vietnam into Kampuchea.
The Indian military intervention in 1971 into East Pakistan (modern Bangladesh) ended the Pakistani government’s brutal killings of Bengali people (Gannon, 2011). The Ugandan case was characterized by Idi Amin’s eight years of brutal dictatorship, which featured gross violation of human rights. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed (Welsh, 2004).
Tanzania was forced to breach one of the main values of the African Union of no- interference. Interventions after the Cold War include military intervention in Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq. Non-interventions include Rwanda and Srebrenica. In the first case, an intervention would have been important to stop the genocide while, in the latter, it would have been appropriate in protecting basic human rights. This inaction greatly undermined the UN’s authority (Gannon, 2011).
Conclusion
In conclusion, human intervention will remain a controversial and hotly debated topic in the milieu of international relations. Nevertheless, it is clear that military intervention in sovereign states where gross violations of human rights take place is lawful and acceptable under international law.
This is despite the fact that international relations theories like realism may support unrests like the Libyan case, which lead to theses violations. However, the constituents of gross violations of human rights will continue to be debated. As such, this essay supports humanitarian intervention in Libya.
This is because based on the empirical records provided on the outset of this paper, such intervention is permissible with or without Security Council authorization even though in the Libyan case, the UN had authorized the intervention through Resolution 1973. In addition, the move is also justified by the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ report adopted by the UN legalizes military intervention on a humanitarian basis.
References
Blanchard, C.M. (2011). Libya: Unrest and U.S. policy. Washington, DC: DIANE Publishing.
Carlsnaes, W. & Simmons, B.A. (2002). Handbook of international relations. New York: Sage Publishing.
The American jobs act, introduced by Obama, will do more harm than good to the United States’ ailing economy. The plan’s long and short-term objectives are wanting. America does not need stopgap measures, but comprehensive policies that will restore her economy. As such, I believe you should not vote for this bill for the following reasons.
First, the plan has no concrete way of controlling workers’ expenditure out of the US. By reducing taxes on middle and low-income families, the government expects to fill the pockets of American workers with more money (Ohlemacher). Consequently, the purchasing power of the workers will increase leading to business boom as workers buy more.
However, for this plan to be effective, the workers must only buy products from American firms. What happens if they spend the extra cash in Chinese products? The local products will not sell apiece more. The increased demand for foreign products could have devastating effects on the country’s economy. By accepting, passing, and enacting the bill as a whole, the US will be strengthening the economies of other countries at the expense of her own.
Secondly, by introducing the payroll tax cuts, Obama expects to entice businesses to hire more workers, which will hardly work. Though this is a perfect short-run strategy, businesses use long-term financial projections in their hiring decisions. The payroll taxes being temporary, businesses will be reluctant to hire new employees (Doyle). This is because when the payroll tax program ends, businesses fear that they could be left with burdens too huge to bear.
After all, why hire today when you know you will retrench in less than a year? For businesses to respond to the payroll tax cut proposals the program must be permanent otherwise, it will be a complete fail. Additionally, the plan’s stimulus suggestion is a replica of congress’ 2009 decision, which has failed to create jobs.
When congress first authorized the extension of unemployment benefits to a maximum period of 99 weeks, their aim was to reduce unemployment rate (Blu). However, this has not achieved much since the unemployment rate is at all time high despite having authorized the same five times! Consequently, America has failed five times in her attempts to reduce, if not completely eradicate unemployment using this plan.
What has changed that makes this failed plan the best unemployment solution today? The answer is, “Nothing.” As a nation, we have walked down the path that has led us to our destruction not once or twice but five times. It is high time that we changed tact. We cannot tackle the 21st century’s economic challenges using the 15th century tactics, especially when they have failed us.
Finally, the plan will increase America’s debt to unimaginable level. Since Obama took office as the president of the United States of America, the US national debt has increased by more than $4 trillion (Ohlemacher). While Obama insists that his plan will be 100% paid for, he has not stated how and where he will get the money.
According to an Associated Press report, “the budget proposal would impose about $730 billion in new taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals over the next decade, while cutting about $400 billion in taxes on middle-income families, the working poor, and other businesses, for a net tax increase of about $330 billion (Ohlemacher).”
This leads to the question, where is Obama going to get the budget deficit funds. Having exhausted all taxation avenues, he may borrow from other nations.
The nation is already in too much debt that adding even a coin will be suicidal. Since Obama launched his job plan, many people, most of them being democrats, have supported it citing different advantages. First, they claim that the plan will help reduce the US spending greatly. Yes, the plan proposes a $ 400 billion saving by freezing any spending considered discretionary (Ohlemacher).
The plan further proposes spending only in areas considered critical for America’s growth and job creation. Secondly, the proponents of the plan say it will help many states in retaining workers such as police officers, teachers, and firefighters. Many states have in the past tried to reduce their expenditure by retrenching employees, the worst hit being the above categories.
Since this job plan proposes direct financial support to various state governments, such people will not lose their jobs. Finally, they also claim that the plan will help in modernizing public education and improving infrastructure development in the country. While the above reasons can easily convince one to believe in the credibility, creativeness, effectiveness, and reliability of the plan, a deeper scrutiny can reveal otherwise.
The claim that the plan will help reduce US spending is baseless. According to the plan, the $ 400 billion saving from other government expenditure is not real money. The government intends to spend even more that what the plan claims on infrastructure development (Blu). The claim that the government will save hundreds of thousands of jobs by offering financial support to states does not translate to job creation.
The government will be preventing job losses, which is not the same as job creation. In conclusion, I may say that the American jobs act is a monster that if enacted will, bring the US government down on its knees. As such, we must stand strong to defend our country against bad policies that will ruin our great nation’s reputation and honor. I beseech you to stand for America and vote, “NO.”