George W. Bush and His State of Union Addresses

"I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to serve the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it, as well."
These sentiments were expressed by President George W Bush while inaugurating his presidency in 2001. After eight years in office, his State of the Union Address on 28th January 2008 summed up his tenure, though the role of conviction, public interest and compassion in framing policy is open to debate. 9/11 determined the focus of Bush presidency on the global war on terror. But the roots of his 'global campaign for freedom' runs through all his State of the Union Addresses, including the one delivered before 9/11.
In his Inaugural Address in 2001, the President clearly stated that America would build her defences beyond challenge, lest weakness invites challenge, and weapons of mass destruction will be confronted to spare the new century their horrors. In his own, "the enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom." The assault on the challengers to American freedom was made eight months before the terrorist strike on the World Trade Centre.
The agenda spelled out at the inauguration of the Bush presidency remains ambitious towards the end of Bush's presidential tenure. At the close of his first presidency, he had re-emphasized the challenges encountered in the global war against terrorism. The State of Union Address in 2004 referred less to American successes, and more to local problems and the inherent difficulties of the democratic experience. In the first four years, President Bush had the determination to realize the tasks set forth but the 2005 State of the Union Address made it clear that much had yet to be accomplished and that the journey was longer and more challenging than the one already traversed. In his 2008 State of the Union Address, President Bush explicitly stated that the "???enemy is still dangerous and more work remains". He further asserted, "Our enemies in Iraq have been hit hard. They are not yet defeated, and we can still expect tough fighting ahead."
The Bush era's foreign policy has impacted strongly on domestic politics in a characteristic American 'awe and shock' style. In his State of the Union Address in 2007, President Bush proudly announced the economic growth of America and referred to the low rate of unemployment and inflation. The 2008 State of the Union Address occurred in the midst of strong fears of an economic recession. Armed with an Economic Stimulus plan and several other strategies, Bush has attempted to allay growing economic fears in America. The grim economic conditions have multiplied the criticism of the Bush presidency over his Afghanistan and Iraq policies. His presidency has indeed diversified the challenges that America faced when he took oath as President in 2001.
The hall mark of the Bush Presidency has been an intense self-defined justification of his executive actions. It is some kind of pre-emptive rationale to defend every policy of his administration. In his various State of the Union Addresses, President Bush refers to the movement for peace in some areas and the death and devastation in others. But according to him, the advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and want to subject millions to violent rule. Nowhere is the failure and violence attributed to flaws in US strategy and approach. Foreign policy during the Bush presidency has been based on a clear premise: that people, when given the chance, will choose freedom and peace. The timing for exercising this choice and the qualifications required for democratic rule are defined by the Bush administration. For countries like Iraq and Iran the time had come, while for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the choice of freedom has still not arrived.
The faith in America's democratizing mission runs through all the State of the Union Addresses delivered by President Bush. In the twilight months of his presidency, it is hoped that he will leave behind some positive and promising examples of sustainable freedom and democracy around the world. President Bush is right in stating that "the actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our nation long after this session has ended." But time will tell whether the effect of his actions will lead to more challenges or more rewards for the American nation.

Protect America Act – Protection or Infringement.

Protect America Act (PAA) is a piece of legislation for modernizing foreign intelligence law to better protect America. The provision of the PAA are sought to be included into the updated version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The PAA was passed by the Congress in July 2007 and was due to expire on February 15 2008. The House of Representatives has not re-authorized the Act for the ensuing year. With the expiration of the Act the PAA authorized current intelligence activated will not expire immediately as all such activities are authorized for a year.

What the PAA protects and what it threatens?

The Act allows the Administration to collect information without any oversight by the Congress or the courts. President Bush and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell have through their speeches and comments painted numerous scary scenarios threatening America if the Act is not passed. If one merely happens to read these comments, it would seem more likely to be a threat call from the Al-Qaeda rather than a speech from the American Head of State. For example Mike McConnell commented, “those living on American soil are likely to suffer a horrendous act."

Under this act the Attorney General and not the Secret Intelligence Courts, warrants year-long surveillance of people believed to threaten US and stationed outside the US. Though the Act is aimed at gathering information about people outside the US, calls and emails that are monitored in the process can potentially involve a US based party or person. In such a scenario the Act clearly infringes upon the civil liberties of US citizens. The Act contains no clarification about the issue of Americans’ calls and emails being intercepted in the process. The Act also provides legal immunity for the telecom companies cooperating with the Administration for realizing the new surveillance programme.

Beyond these technical discussions the PAA threatens a basic principle of the US Constitution - principle of ‘checks and balances’. Can the Executive be authorized to conduct intelligence surveillance without being accountable to the other branches of the Government of the people of America?

NATO – Realizing the US foreign policy objectives

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit 2008, the Summit Declaration reiterated NATO as an essential forum for security consultations between Europe and North America. The discussions at and decisions of the Summit demonstrate the kind of the partnership that exists between the European countries and the US. NATO has been and continues to remain a forum for implementing the US foreign policy objectives in Europe rather than a platform for a genuine trans-Atlantic partnership.

NATO had originated during the Cold War to counter the alleged domination of the European continent by former USSR. Though the cold war context no longer exists, NATO is rooted in its initial psychological moorings. The US continues to mentor and guide the functioning of NATO, while granting some superficial semblance of NATO as an equal partnership with the European countries.

The US insisted on allowing Georgia and Ukraine to join the NATO, while the European nations, Germany and France in particular, opposed the move. The Summit decided to review the application of Georgia and Ukraine in December 2008, which is interpreted as a success of European diplomacy vis-à-vis the US. On the controversy of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the US eagerly towed the position adopted by the European nations. These decisions are being highlighted as an evidence of the ability of the European nations to counter the imposition of the US agenda on the continent.

Analysis of the more important decisions of the Bucharest Summit provide a better perspective of the kind of partnership that exists between the US and Europe through NATO.

The support of European states for the US sponsored comprehensive missile defense architecture has been the most prominent victory for the US at this Summit. In defending the need for missile defense President Bush had referred to past attacks like the 9/11 tragedy and the plausible threat of attack by Iran. Hence the US threat concerns clearly dictate the NATO missile defense strategy. The principle of indivisibility of allied security is a strategy by the US to realize its strategic goals on the European continent.

NATO could not be left untouched by the ongoing public diplomacy campaign of the Bush Administration. The declaration announced the launching of a new NATO TV channel on the internet which would include regular news updates and video reports, in particular from regions of Afghanistan. The rationalization for the decision was underlined through the need for providing appropriate, timely, accurate and responsive communication with local and international audiences in relation to NATO’s policies and engagements in international operations.

America’s search for reducing the burden of international responsibilities through expanding partnerships is reflected in the Summit Declaration. Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, Partnership for Peace, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the recently evolved individual Tailored Cooperation Packages indicate the diverse ways in which the US is building alliances through NATO to create multiple centers for sharing responsibility.

In keeping with the emerging concerns over America’s non-military challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan the Declaration refers to a comprehensive approach to address the future security issues. Equal importance of employing civil and military instruments in NATO operations was emphasized. The US fears withdrawal from Iraq would embolden local militias supported by Iran and thereby complicate its efforts at sustaining a Middle East peace process. The term of the NATO Training Mission in Iraq was extended through 2009 upon the request of the Iraqi government. The declaration highlighted the need to develop and field modern, interoperable, flexible and sustainable forces. These forces are expected to conduct, upon decision by the Council, collective defense and crisis response operations on and beyond Alliance territory, on its periphery, and at strategic distance, with little or no host nation support. This sounds much like the agenda of an activist US foreign policy.

The energy demands in the US are rising and so is the unrest among the oil-exporting countries which has led NATO to delineate a more prominent role in the field of energy security. NATO is expected to engage in the following fields: information and intelligence fusion and sharing; projecting stability; advancing international and regional cooperation; supporting consequence management; and supporting the protection of critical energy infrastructure. The Council in Permanent Session has been tasked to prepare a consolidated report on the progress achieved in the area of energy security for consideration at the 2009 Summit.

On substantive issues the US has dominated the stage, while the European countries played a decisive role with regard to certain procedural and membership issues. The US diplomacy has worked at its best in giving to the European nations a victory point for basking in the glories of an equal partnership with the US, while realizing vital strategic and political objectives of the US policy on the Continent.

Perception Management- Realism Revisited

The US is innovating on strategies for elaborating and refining the application of Morgenthau’s national interest defined as power principle. The most promising strategy in the American arsenal is the multi-dimensional public diplomacy campaign. A host of institutes and projects are commissioned with the task of providing PR services for the US foreign policy.

The Freedom Promotion Act 2002 instructed the US secretary of State to make public diplomacy an integral component in the planning and execution of US foreign policy

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy is a bipartisan panel created by Congress and appointed by the President to provide oversight of U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics.

America Abroad Media provides in depth analysis of international affairs and facilitates cross cultural discussion of international issues and America’s role in the world.

Business for Diplomatic Action is a private sector task force with the mission to enlist the US business community in actions to improve in the world with the goal of once again, seeing America admired as a global leader.

The Office of Global Communications was formed in 2002 to coordinate strategic communications overseas with regard to American policies and values -- with greater clarity and through dialogue with emerging voices around the globe.

The contributions of John W. Rendon, Charlotte Beers, Karen P. Huges cannot be under-estimated; the recent appointment of Sada Cumber as US Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Countries adds a new dimension the US public diplomacy campaign.

The US has added a new dimension of ‘perception-management’ to the power projection principle of Realism.

John McCain – The Realistic Idealist

In March Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain delivered a speech at the World Affairs Council, Los Angeles, highlighting the basic tenets of his foreign policy. McCain claims to be a realistic idealist, one who recognizes the challenges in the contemporary world while aspiring for the higher ideals of peaceful co-existence among nations. His speech is a classic example of coding realist goals in idealist language.

In his own words, McCain’s idealism is to make the world a more better and peaceful place, where “our interests and those of our allies are more secure” and American ideals advance even further than they have. According to Morgenthau protecting and securing one’s interests is the basis of the Realist Theory.

McCain seeks to expand the reach of American ideals; this conforms with Morgenthau’s advise that national interest is dynamic and strategies to achieve these interests should evolve in response to emerging demands.

According to McCain the developments of science and technology have brought untold prosperity, eradicated disease, and reduced the suffering of millions in the US. Thus the US has “a chance in our lifetime to raise the world to a new standard of human existence.” Morgenthau’s principle of ‘national interest defined as power’ is clearly evident in this statement of McCain.

The US, according to McCain must lead by attracting others to its cause, by demonstrating the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms. The universal moral principles of realism referred to in McCain’s speech, are filtered through the prism of America’s national interest. This confirms with the realist principle that universal moral principles are not applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but are filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place.

To err is human. According to the Realist Theory, laws of politics are rooted in human nature. No wonder, McCain has erred in branding his realism as idealism. It is simply an idealist statement of the realist principles in his foreign policy.