Analysis Of Unilateralism Under George W Bush Politics Essay

Analysis Of Unilateralism Under George W Bush Politics Essay Prior to 1945, the dominant trend in the policy of the United States was isolationist, which was isolation from global affairs. America was ambivalent about multilateral engagements and as much as possible remained separated from the European balance of power. In the same vein, the U.S. congress disapproved U.S. participation in the League of Nations reflecting the traditional ambivalence of America towards multilateral engagements. However, after the 2nd World War, there was a significant change in the U.S. foreign policy. The American isolationist approach collapsed completely, and the United States foreign policy was principally committed to multilateralism, as the defining post war strategy adopted by both Democrats and Republicans (Skidmore, 2005). The United States adopted a strategy of global engagement from its hitherto selective engagement. A multilateral approach became the crucial instrument in Americas attempt to conduct the cold war and rebuild international order. The onset of the cold war was the major source of change which by 1947 convinced U.S. policy makers that removal of the soviet threat was the proper strategy and in light of the communist challenge, the containment of the Soviet threat had to be global to have any effect (Jentleson, 2008). The United States became committed to multilateral cooperation and international institutions following World War 2, it promoted the Bretton Woods System multilateralism while supporting institutions such as the UN, IMF, NATO, and the World Bank among others. During this period according to Skidmore (2005), multilateralism attained prominence in the foreign policy of the United States both in practice and in rhetoric, and as the U.S. became internationally powerful, multilateralism was integrated as a norm in international society. However, the American foreign policy has since taken a sharp unilateralist turn especially with the Bush administration; it turned its back on the world and was principally committed to unilateralism and this has been consequential for the U.S. policy and the reputation of the United States internationally. This essay seeks to explore how the United States under the Bush administration rejected multilateralism and adopted a more unilateralist approach to global issues than its predecessors. It is pertinent to note that multilateralism for the United States was not always a principled commitment, but more of a policy preference; American policy makers approached multilateralism pragmatically as it was adopted insofar as it serves U.S. interest and was willingly overlooked when it did not work. It is important to acknowledge that despite the fact that President Bushs administration embraced a more unilateral approach to international issues, not all of presidents Bushs predecessors adopted a multilateral approach to foreign policy as the United States always favoured whatever worked. The Reagan administration in the 1982 Siberian gas pipeline conflict rejected the NATO consensus and enforced unilateral sanctions against European companies for cooperating economically with the Soviet Union (Ikenberry, 2003). The Bush senior administration in the bid to promote free trade approached international economic policy unilaterally; its use of Super 301 trade negotiating authority allowed the U.S. to act as judge, jury and prosecutor simultaneously as it determines what countries should be threatened with punitive sanctions. According to Ikenberry (2003), U.S. officials argue consistently that although multilateralism was preferred, they were always ready to use bilateral talks or even unilateral actions when necessary to achieve what they want. Under the Clinton administration, the NATO allies of the United States tried to convince the Clinton government for several years to intervene in the Bosnian Civil war through a multilateral approach. After the United States finally agreed in 1995, it practically dictated the terms of military intervention supporting the Dayton agreement (Stewart and Shepard, 2002). Also, the Clinton administration intervened under the auspices of military institutions in Somalia in 1992-1993, but withdrew its troops unilaterally after American soldiers became casualties in Somalia. Furthermore, despite international pressure, the United States sat back and practically did little or nothing while atrocities such as the genocide in Rwanda took place. In the same vein, the Clinton administration in Kosovo resisted the UN Security Council by rejecting an intervention and instead worked through NATO, a different multilateral institution. Similarly, the Clinton administration in 1998 refused to be limited on its ability to employ U.S.military power and bypassed the UN Security Council by undertaking Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets. Clintons National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, is of the opinion that only one overriding factor can determine whether the United States should act multilaterally or unilaterally, and that is Americas interests. We should act multilaterally where doing so advances our interests, and we should act unilaterally when that will serve our purpose. The simple question in each case is this: What works best? Anthony Lake (1993: 663) However, the United States under the Bush administration embraced a more unilateralist approach to global issues than its predecessors. Unilateral elements of the Bush Doctrine were apparent in the first months of the Bush administration as America withdrew from international agreements, retreating into a unilateralist stance. President Bushs unilateralism became evident in the first few weeks after he took office. After he preached during his election campaign that the U.S. should learn humility in their conduct with other nations, in March 2001, President Bush rather arrogantly withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Global Warming negotiations, a protocol the Americans had signed but was yet to be ratified. Jacobson, (2002) echoed that The U.S did not want its capability to trade for emission rights with other nations to be limited. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, European critics indicated that the United States in 2002 emitted about one-third of greenhouse gases globally (Dumbrell, 2002). Furthermore, in mid 2001, projections made pointed out that by 2010, U.S. emissions would increase by 23 percent. The U.S. refusal to support emission reduction limits confirmed the unilateralist position of the Bush administration to foreign policy (Dumbrell, 2002). The Bush administration repudiated to support series of international agreements. The convention on the prohibition of the production, stockpiling, the transfer and use of antipersonnel mines was signed on the 18th of September 1997 in Ottawa (Prestowitz, 2003). The treaty was signed by every country in the Western Hemisphere except the United States and Cuba and every other member of NATO are signatories to the treaty except the United States and Turkey. The United States demanded an exemption for the removal of mines along the borders of the demilitarized zones in South Korea and an exemption permitting as part of a mixed system the deployment of U.S. antipersonnel mines including antitank mines (Edwards and King, 2007). Other parties to the negotiation rejected both demands made by U.S. military officials and this prompted the U.S. to decline the final agreement. Although President Clinton during his administration promised that the United States would sign the Ottawa convention b y 2006, the Bush administration since entering into office had rejected the treaty and abandoned Clintons earlier pledge. The United States followed self-proclaimed unilateralist action by refusing to ratify the International Criminal Court. The ICC, establish to try war crimes was voted to be established on July 17, 1997 by 120 nations although 7 nations voted against the court while 21 nations abstained (Nolte, 2003). Although President Clinton ultimately signed the ICC treaty as one of his final actions in office on December 31, 2000 overruling objections from many senate Republics and the pentagon, the Bush administration rejected the ICC and withdrew all U.S. support of the court thereby rendering the earlier signature of Clinton null and void (Brown, 2002).The Bush administration campaigned to make sure that other states would not bring charges to the ICC against U.S. troops, According to Nolte (2003), under U.S. pressure the governments of more than sixty states signed bilateral agreements pledging not to submit charges to the ICC against U S. troops. Under the Bush administration, the unilateralist trend of America refusing to live by the rules and yet expecting the rest of the world to comply was dramatically accelerated. President Bush abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on December 13, 2001 in pursuance of a national missile defense as the Bush administration had blamed the national missile defense lack of advancement on the ABM Treaty (Hirsh, 2002). This step undertaken by the Bush Administration was opposed by China, Russia and most U.S. allies but President Bush was determined to go-it-alone by backing out of a Treaty that had been a vital part of arms control for close to 30 years. During the Clinton and Bush Senior administration, the power of the United States was not flaunted by domineering less powerful states, although the Clinton administration acted unilaterally on some occasions, at least it appeared to consult and take the views of others before taking action. The Bush administration on the other hand does not even pretend to listen to its allies; rather they inform allies of what is expected to be done. Bushs unilateralist approach could be referred to as in your face or without apology as his unilateral practise is not taken only as a necessary last resort. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on Washington D.C. and New York shocked the international community to cooperate unprecedentedly as friends and foes of the U.S declared jointly a global war on terrorism. However, after the Taliban regime in Afghanistan alongside its Al Qaeda terrorist allies had been toppled, the Bush administration returned to assertive unilateralism (Hayden et al, 2003). The Bush administration disregarded the uproar of international opposition, without an explicit authorization of the Security Council to the use of force and proceeded with the Iraq war almost alone. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, the U.S policy under President Bush continued to be characterised by unilateralism. On the 29th January 2002, President Bush in his State of the Union Address characterized Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil, governments threatening world peace, accused of seeking weapons of mass destruction and assisting terrorist (Owens and Dumbrell, 2008). Ignoring criticisms internationally, President Bush went ahead to destroy the Saddam Hussein government, belittling the International Atomic Energy Agency and the united nations as being ineffective. The U.S led coalition to invade Iraq was joined by only Britain. The U.S. led invasion of Iraq under the Bush administration symbolised the implementation of a new national security policy known as the Bush doctrine. This doctrine basically changed the way U.S. acted towards the rest of the world and indicated a radical shift from past national security strategies. This doctrine stressed the concept of preventive or pre-emptive war and a willingness by the United States to act unilaterally if cooperation through a multilateral approach cannot be attained. According to Owens and Dumbrell (2008), President Bush indicated that the new policy was imperative to forestall the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among terrorist groups and rogue states, while maintaining that the policy of deterrence was no longer adequate to prevent the use of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons among terrorist organisations or rogue states. The Bush doctrine prompts the United States to behave arrogantly and act unilaterally since the invasion of Iraq. Also, the doctrine would jeopardize the international cooperation necessary to track down terrorist groups as the U.S tends to alienate world opinion. Furthermore, the concept of pre-emptive war is prone to encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction rather than discourage it and could increase the risk of regional conflicts if embraced by other nations. The use of force unilaterally would not resolve the resolve the problems of the world. President Bush senior told his son that if a war in Iraq was not backed up by international cooperation, hopes of peace in the Middle East would be farfetched. Bushs Unilateralism and pre-emptive action to deal with weapons of mass destruction has incited popular criticism and ambivalence throughout the Middle East, East and Southeast Asia among others (Edwards and king, 2007). His unilateral approach to global affairs has backfired as it created friction between the mainstream international community and the United States. The heart of President Bush was in the right place as he wanted to make the world secure from terrorism and WMD for which he should be applauded, however, his might makes right and America first approaches have intensified animosities, shaken alliances and increased the risk of global terrorism. When it comes to addressing the problems of the world , multilateral international cooperation is more appropriate than President Bushs unilateral actions. The United States has the greatest influence in international affairs as it possesses the largest military and economy in the world. No nation has had as much cultural, economic and military power as the United States since the Roman Empire. However, Nye (2002) is of the opinion that it became evident through the nuclear threat posed by Iraq and the attacks of September 11 that in solving global problems, power is just not enough. Global issues such as environmental degradation, terrorism, financial instability, infectious diseases, drugs and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires involving the cooperation of other nations to be tackled. Unilateralism harms the credibility and international standing of the United States, weakens global environmental initiatives, damaged treaties and cripples the ability of the U.S to negotiate effectively in the future. There are global problems that simply cannot be solved by one country alone irrespective of how powerful, the U.S needs global cooperation to combat international terrorism, sanction effectively law-breaking states, hinder the proliferation of WMD and missile technology, to invest in foreign nations and to curtail illegal immigrants across international borders amongst others (Haass, 2008). Nye (2002), stressed that the United States cannot go it alone as unilateralism is not a viable option; it threatens to undermine its soft power and triggers the forming of coalition against the U.S. which could finally limit its hard power. However, Nye is not saying that the United States should not strike out on its own when deemed necessary or as a last resort because the interest of the U.S. may not always correspond with the ambitions of other nations. Nevertheless, the United States should strive to cooperate with the international community as much as possible because if the U.S. is bound to lead, it is also bound to cooperate (Nye, 2002). In conclusion, the United states under the bush administration adopted a more unilateralist approach to global issues than its predecessors as his administration embraced a go it alone strategy to address international issues in the aftermath of 9/11 and constantly repudiated international norms, treaties and negotiating forums. However, on Saturday 22 May 2010 at the West Point U.S Military Academy, President Obama while addressing graduating cadets declared that the U.S cannot act alone in the world as he outlined a foreign policy agenda that rejected the go-it-alone approach adopted by his predecessor, George W. Bush (BBC News, May 23, 2010). President Obama announced that in contrast to the Bush era, the white house would no longer ignore the international community; explaining that the United States performed best when it operated within alliances for example during the Second World War or during its tensions with the Soviet Union.

Remedial education Essay

According to my knowledge, education helps empower people. I think education helps shape people; it affects how we act, think and respond. Sometimes education can help a person find their path in life. The process of getting a good education, however, may have its flaws. Most of the time, kids who are raised in a poor neighborhood doesn’t get the same opportunities as kids who are raised in a wealthier community. Like Mike Rose, I believed that everyone deserves a second chance in education. Remedial education was created mainly for that reason. It was created to help students who are underprepared and students who are immigrants. Remedial education also helps many immigrants by developing their basic education. Mike Rose pointed out the importance of remedial education in chapters 9 and 10 of his book â€Å"Why School? Reclaiming Education for All of Us†. Remedial education is the foundation of the education system in the United States because it helps ensure the success of many students. Remedial education helps prepare students who has received a bad education and also offers students a second chance to acquire the fundamental skills needed to get back on track. A student’s backgrounds always have a big impact in their education. Most of the time, students who are in remedial education are students who came from a poor background. Living in a poor neighborhood can affects a student’s education greatly because of all the distractions. In chapter 10, Mike Rose talked about a student of his name Kevin. Mike Rose stated â€Å"He was a good student in poor schools, schools with dated textbooks, scarce resources for enrichment, high teacher turnover. † A person future should not be decided because he or she was born in a lower class. If Universities doesn’t offered remedial education, Kevin would most likely dropout of school. After Kevin’s dropout, the chance of him earning a high salary is slim. The result of that creates a cycle that many Americans are struggling to get out of. I think remedial education helps give these students a chance to break that cycle. Like Mike Rose said, remedial education helps these students greatly by giving the students a second chance at education. In chapter 10, Mike Rose stated â€Å"†¦that is the remediation in nation that prides itself as being a ‘second-chance’ society. † Where this nation is the land where everyone is supposedly given the equal opportunities, students should get equal opportunity. The United States was built on the quote â€Å"the land of opportunities†. It is one of the main reasons why the United States is number one on immigrant’s population. Immigrants who immigrate to this country are mostly non-English speakers, they should be able to receive the same opportunity to success like others students. Remedial education helps many immigrants who may need a little extra help for prepare for college. Some colleges view remedial students as a hassle and a waste of college resources. In chapter 9, Mike Rose stated â€Å"Kick remediation off campus, and the primary thing you will achieve is the greater exclusion of American youth from higher education† (Rose 124). Dismissing remedial education is like denying education from the students. Rose’s statement helps reinforce the fact that remedial education helps Universities and Colleges to reach it highest potential. I think that Universities and Colleges should invest more resources in remedial education because it makes them look good. Show others institutions that they are capable of training underprepared students to be highly qualified graduate, now that is an impressive accomplishment. .Remedial education has always been very important in my family. My uncle has always been a person that I admired the most, simply because he worked hard to achieve his American dream. My uncle was a professor teaching at a University in Vietnam. He came to the United State in the year 2000. He spoke no English, yet the desire to learn and succeed had driven him to the land of opportunities. It was very tough at first, but slowly after settling down, he decided to attend a community college. As he recalled, remediation classes helps build his skills. It helped him learn the about the culture, the language, and the importance of communication. He learned that real education come from engaging courses. Courses that help students develop their thinking, as well as, challenge the instructors. He admitted that without remedial education, he would never be able to fully be prepared for higher education. Now my uncle has developed his own business by using the communication skills and networking he learned in his remedial classes. He is the living prove that remedial education are the core of the education system. Although remedial education shows how unprepared American students may be for college, it also revealed the false in our educational system. As much as the government tries to reform education, there will always be a loophole. For many students who are affected by this, they rely on remedial education as there last hope to get a good education. Remedial education also acts as a review for many students who feel that they are in need to revisit the basics. No matter what nationality or history a student has, he or she deserves a second chance at education and a remedial education ensures this.

Performance and Participation in games Essay

Read through the following notes and then answer the questions at the end of each section. Please answer each set of questions on a different sheet using a new heading each time. Please write your answers fully in sentences. Consider how many marks each question is worth as to how much you need to write. The questions should be finished and handed in on Tuesday the 7th November along with your coursework (all sections). School – Questions. 1. Explain how your experiences in PE can have both a negative or a positive effect on your participation in sport later in life (2). Name 5 different roles that a pupil could take within a PE lesson (5) 3. For key stage three PE explain what areas of activity are covered and the aims of PE at this level (7) 4. For key stage four PE explain what areas of activity are covered and the aims of PE at this level (4) 5. Explain what benefits can be sought from extra- curricular PE i. On a representational basis and ii. On a recreational basis (4) 6. Name one benefit of examination courses for i. The image of PE and ii. Pupils who have an interest in PE. 7. Explain what benefits links with sports clubs can have and why this is necessary (3) 8. Explain why cross- curricular links are important for pupils (2). 9. Name and explain 3 ways that a school could cover the cost of its sporting activities (3). 10. Explain how curriculum constraints can have a negative effect on how much time is available for PE (2). 11. Explain how tradition can affect the opportunities pupils may have within PE (2) 12. Explain how the environment can affect the opportunities that pupils may have within PE (both positive and negative) (2). Changing Attitudes. What effects do attitudes of society have on participation in games? 1. What is leisure (2) 2. How has leisure time increased (1) 3. Give some of the reasons for this increase and explain why these effects do actually increase opportunities (5) 4. Explain the aim of private leisure providers and name three different types of leisure opportunities they provide (4) 5. Explain the aim of public leisure providers and name three different types of leisure opportunities they provide (4) 6. Name some of the target groups that public providers make provisions for, explain what provisions they make and why this is useful. (5)

Wuthering Heights Annotaations - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1184 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/05/13 Category Literature Essay Level High school Topics: Wuthering Heights Essay Did you like this example? Characters Heathcliff Heathcliff is in love with Catherine. Catherine truly gave him a boost of confidence to pursue in everything he wanted. But when she left him for Edgar for popularity reasons, he turned into an evil human. He treats his dogs poorly. Wuthering Heights is where he lives. Marries Isabella for revenge on Edgar for marrying the love of his life, Catherine. Edgar Linton Edgar is passionate about Catherine, and understands her signifigantly more than others. Edgar loses everything. Cathy Linton A curious women who is new to Wuthering Heights. Edgars sister. Has a quality of being two faced. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Wuthering Heights Annotaations" essay for you Create order Catherine Earnshaw Cannot choose between her love for Edgar or Heathcliff. Catherine only wants what is good for her. She is truly in love with Heathcliff, but really wants to be a wealthy women, and Edgar can her that. Nelly Dean Narrator of the book. Starts a lot of drama, and enjoys the commotion. Gets all of his information from Zillah Hareton Earnshaw Never had a true father, and doesnt understand what love is. Looks at Heathcliff as a father. Develops feelings for Cathy. Isabella Edgar Lintons sister. Marries Heathcliff. Lockwood He typically causes a lot of issues, because he isnt as close with many of the characters. Rents from Heathcliffs Thrushcross Grange. Mr. Earnshaw Catherines and Hindleys father. He adopted Heathcliff, and seems to like him more than his own children. Mrs. Earnshaw Catherines mom. Hates Heathcliff and loves Hindley. Married to Mr. Earnshaw. Hindley Earnshaw Catherines brother. Hates Heathcliff because his parents favor him more than him, so he gets jealous because he isnt even related. Married to Frances. Frances Earnshaw Married to Hindley. Frances is a very ill women who shortly dies after she gives birth to her son Hareton. Joseph He is a slave for Wuthering Heights. Many people find him extremely sketchy because of how religous he is. Mr. Linton Edgars dad. Supports Catherine so she can live her life successfully, dies after healing Catherine. Mrs. Linton Edgars mom. Married to Mr. Linton, is a signifigant part to Catherines life, dies after Catherine is back to normal. Zillah Heathcliffs maid, and gives Nelly a lot of inside information at Wuthering Heights. Conflicts : MAIN CONFLICT The main conflict is that Heathcliff and Catherine are truly in love with each other. Catherine is extremely selfcentered and she wants whatever makes her look the best. Heathcliff had the potential to be a weathy gentleman, but Catherine didnt want to wait, so she saw that Edgar already was a weathy man, and she wanted to look wealthy as well right away. The tension between the 3 characters causes everything to go haywire between the rest of the character in the novel. Heathcliff is in love with Catherine, but Edgar ends up marrying her. Heathcliff then marries Isabella to get revenge on Edgar for stealing the love of his life. This is an example of internal conflict because Heathcliff is jealous of Edgar Mr. and Mrs. Earnshaw adopt Heathcliff, and favor him more than their actual children. Which makes Hindley, their son very angry. Catherine experiences an internal conflict when she has to choose between Edgar and Heathcliff. She gets called on that she loves both,and cannot decide who she wanted to be with. Her indecicivness ends up causing her death. Theme : Love Love is a theme of the novel because many of the characters love one another. Some circumstances are more difficult than others but they still experience it. Heathcliff is in love with Catherine, and she is in love with him. But Catherine is a selfcentered brat, who cares about her social life, so she chooses Edgar over Heathcliff. Hate Hate is a theme of the novel because Heathcliff is in love with Catherine but so is Edgar. They hate each other because they both know that Catherine is in love with Heathcliff. Heathcliff hates Edgar because he has a better life financially and thats what Catherine wants. Edgar than begins to hate Heathcliff even more because he marries his sister Isabella. Revenge Revenge is a theme of the novel because Heathcliff wants to get revenge on Edgar for taking the love of his life away from him. Heathcliff decides that a good way to get him back for taking her would be to marry his sister. Family Family is a theme of the novel because if it werent for the families and everyone being related, everything would go bad. Nobody would be in Wuthering Heights anymore and the people would make poor decisions towards each other. If there was no family in this story there would be no drama because there would be no way to make anyone mad or use anyone for revenge in that matter. An example is that Heathcliff wouldnt be able to use Isabella for revenge on Edgar if there was no family in the novel. Feeling of Alienation Feeling of Alienation comes into play when Heathcliff is pushed away from everyone. He was isolated because he is always looking for a way to ruin someones progress and happiness. I believe he does this because he got Catherine taken away from him, so he wants people to feel his pain. Heathcliff tries to get back at everyone for the terrible things they have done to him in the past, but it ends up hurting himself even more. Key Points Within The Novel Mr. Lockwood rents from Heathcliff at Thrushcross Grange Joseph is a servant It is noticed that 1500 and Hareton Earnshaw are marked, but never asks why Heathcliff seems to want no part of Mr.Lockwood Violent dogs went after Healthcliff and Mr Lockwood A random guy gets lockwood to go with him to try and get him back inside of wuthering heights. It is snowing for almost the whole chapter The slave calls the dogs to attack Lockwood and the other guy who were trying to get in Heathcliff is adopted by mr and mrs earnshaw, and treated like garbage when ,r earnshaw dies because there is no one to stop Hindley for attacking him. Catherine and Heathcliff are madly in love, and sneak up on edgars house, they are caught and heathcliff becomes extremely hated, and catherine moves in with isabella and edgar. Heathcliff becomes extremely upset when catherine decideds to choose edgar over him, while he is locked away. Hareton is born, son of Hindley. Catherine decided to marry edgar. They have a baby together and catherine dies while giving birth to cathy. Heathcliff marries isabella as a way of getting edgar angry because its his sister, and he stole the love of his life. And for ruining his whole life. Heathcliff tries to ruin edgars life all and all, because he is that upset from being hated and the love of his life dying. Heathcliff tries to get cathy and hareton to get married to make hindley upset. While Heathcliff is trying to plan ways to kill edgar and completely abolish his life, catherine haunts him 24/7.