The Project File Details
- Name: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT U.S FOREIGN POLICY IN IRAQ 1991-2003
- Type: PDF and MS Word (DOC)
- Size: [418 KB]
- Length:  Pages
With the emergence of modern nation states, modern international relations emerged as these nation-states device and followed certain principles, courses and standards that govern their interactions in the international community. Basically, no nation is an island, so it becomes imperative for nation states to interact with each other. These actions therefore formed the foreign relations of such states. Traditionally, these actions are guided by national foreign policies that are clearly in pursuit of national aspirations or interests. What then is/are foreign policies?
Foreign policy is defined as the study of actions of a state toward the external environment and conditions-usually domestic-under which these actions are formulated (Dawisha, 1976). The domestic condition referred to in this definition may include such things as the form of government of such state and the public opinion and other activities or establishment within such state. However, this does not mean that actions of states are not influenced by external conditions too. Foreign policy can also be said to mean a set of carefully articulated goals and objectives interpreted in the decisions made and actions taken by a state in the pursuant of those articulated goals and objectives when interacting with other states in the international system (Ugwukah and Eteete, 2010).
Foreign policies do not just come about. There are certain factors that influence or determine their formulation. It is impossible to lay down any general rule regarding the relative importance of each of these factors or a scale of importance which decision-makers must permanently adhere to in making their policy decisions. Nevertheless, certain basic
determinants can be identified which most of the states in the international system take in to account while making their policy. F.S Northedge clearly states that the foreign policy of a country is a product of environmental factors both internal and external to it (Ugwukah and Eteete, 2010). Thus, foreign policy formulation is influenced by internal and external factors. The internal factors comprise factors within a particular state. In the words of Henry Kissinger, ‗foreign policy begins where domestic policy ends‘. The internal factors that influence foreign policy formulation include: economic development/structure, social structure, nature and character of political leadership, military capabilities, public opinion, history and culture, geographic location of the state and demographic factor and so on. The external factors (which comprise factors found in the global system) include international organisations and regimes, world public opinion, policies and actions of other states, the nature of the world economy and international law/norms (Ghosh, 2013).
The best formulated foreign policy in the world is rendered irrelevant without a clear sense of tools available to decision makers and their respective utility. By tools we mean instrument needed to implement foreign policy objectives and goals. Traditionally, states have had to recourse to diplomacy, economic, subversion and military instruments to achieve their respective aims and objectives. More recently, these instruments, which can be termed ‗hard power‘ (the use of military and economic or coercion and payment to influence the behaviour or interests of other states) have been supplemented by the recognition of the importance of incorporating ‗soft power‘ (quasi-legal instruments which do not have any legally binding force, or whose binding force is somewhat weaker than that of hard power) into a states range of skills available to them in implementing or executing their foreign policy. The promotion of values through governmental and non-governmental actors is one of the ‗soft power‘ tools which can help states shape a target country‘s foreign policy aims. Each of these has strengths and weaknesses in relation to a given foreign policy problem, and it is a
states‘ability to capitalise on these diverse sets of instruments that determine whether it has a successful foreign policy or not (Alden, 2011).
Since the founding of Iraq in the aftermath of World War I, United States policy (towards Iraq) has included cooperation, confrontation, and war. However, the purpose of this research work is to focus on U.S foreign policy in Iraq from the year 1991 to 2003. The U.S 2003 military invasion of Iraq and the extended occupation that followed were certainly the most dramatic and significant events in the long history of U.S relations with Iraq. This period spanned through the administration of former president George W. Bush. Although the invasion of Iraq is widely regarded as the continuation of the first gulf war, specific and different factors however influence U.S foreign policy from 1991 -2003 (Hahn, 2012).
The United States have enduring interests in preserving regional stability in the Middle East, countering transnational terrorism, and advancing responsible governance. These objectives are advanced by a stable Iraq that can serve as a constructive power. An Iraq without the capacity to govern effectively and mechanisms to resolve conflicts peacefully would be a destabilising presence that would harm U.S interests in the Middle East. United States foreign policy since 2003 have overtime emerged from the need to prevent the re-emergence of Al Qaeda or its affiliates and keep the country from serving as a safe haven that could be used to attack Americans and U.S allies (Nagl and Burton, 2009).
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The United States have series of interests it wants to achieve in Iraq. These interests have instigated the formulation (and execution) of different foreign policies towards the country (Iraq). These policies have guided U.S relations with Iraq over the years. These relations have been sources of huge concern for both the United States and Iraq as well as among various countries of the world. Over the years, different administrations have formulated different
policies and committed considerable amount of resources in their execution, yet it seems the U.S.A is not achieving its stated objectives in the country. For instance, the policy of invasion adopted under the Bush administration which sought to capture ‗Iraq‘s Weapons of Mass Destruction‘ and to free the people of Iraq from the dictatorial rule of Sadam Hussein, to ensure stability in the country (and the region at large) and to curb transnational terrorism did not prove effective from the view of the aftermath of events that occurred. Shortly after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the country combusted, leading to the proliferation of Islamist fundamentalist groups, ethnic and religious militias and insurgents; and thus leading to increase in the activities of terrorist groups. Thus, the study intends to examine the underlying factors responsible for the ineffectiveness of United States foreign policies in Iraq between 1991 – 2003 and also to look at ways in which future relations between the two countries can be improved.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This study seeks to:
(i). assess the major factor(s) responsible for the US war on terrorism and the subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003.
(ii). evaluate the effectiveness of the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration towards Iraq;
(iii). examine the prospects for better relations between the U.S and Iraq.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions include:
1. What are the major factor(s) responsible for the US war on terrorism and the subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003?
2. How effective were/are the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration towards Iraq?
3. What are the prospects for better relations between U.S and Iraq?
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
The purpose of this research work is to take a look at the effectiveness of the foreign policy decisions of the United States towards Iraq from 1991 to 2003. In doing so, the major foreign policy decisions towards Iraq under the administration of George Bush, this will give us a better understanding on the reasons behind the effectiveness (or as the case maybe, ineffectiveness) of the policies under the administration. Also, analysis of the policies would in the future assist U.S decision makers to formulate more comprehensive and better policies towards Iraq. Another major significance of this study is that the prospect of better relations that would be examined in the course of this study would serve as a cornerstone for international relations students and analysts in analysing and making near-accurate postulations in the future relations between the two countries.
1.6 SCOPE OF STUDY
The project work will be limited to United States foreign policy in Iraq from 1991 – 2003. There are a number of reasons for the choice of this scope. First of all, it was during this period that the policy of invasion was adopted under the Bush administration, an event that marked a significant upshot in the relations between the two countries. Secondly, this period also coincided with United States declaration of war on terrorism (in 2001). Finally, a lot of scholars have written a lot of works on the relations between the two countries since 2001, this scope thus allows the researcher access lots of approved and published materials.
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF STUDY
This project work will be divided into five chapters. The first chapter will contain the background to the study, statement of problem, object of study, research questions, significance, scope and limitation of study, methodology and definition of terms. The second chapter is the literature review which is divided into conceptual clarification and theoretical framework. The third chapter will contain the methodology of the research work. Chapter four will involve a discussion on the effectiveness of U.S foreign policy decisions under the Bush administration and the prospects of better relations between the two countries. Some sections of this chapter will also be dedicated to examine the major reasons behind U.S declaration of war on terrorism. And then, the fifth chapter will contain the conclusion, summary of findings, discussion and recommendation.
1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. State: a large social system with a set of rules that are enforced by a permanent administrative body (government). That body claims and tries to enforce sovereignty (ultimate power to control people and events within the area of states).
2. Foreign policy: set of policies that states formulate in order to relate with one another in the international system. Foreign policy of a state entails the ideas or actions designed by policy makers to solve a problem or promote some change in the policies, attitudes or actions of another state or non-state actors in the international economy or in the physical environment of the world. It is a set of rules or principles which govern how a state decides to interact with another state. It involves strategies and tactics a state uses in achieving its national objectives in the international system. No
state is an island, therefore, states need to interact with each other and foreign policy is the method in which a state chooses to do so.
All project works, files and documents posted on this website, projects.ng are the property/copyright of their respective owners. They are for research reference/guidance purposes only and the works are crowd-sourced. Please don’t submit someone’s work as your own to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. Use it as a guidance purpose only and not copy the work word for word (verbatim). Projects.ng is a repository of research works just like academia.edu, researchgate.net, scribd.com, docsity.com, coursehero and many other platforms where users upload works. The paid subscription on projects.ng is a means by which the website is maintained to support Open Education. If you see your work posted here, and you want it to be removed/credited, please call us on +2348159154070 or send us a mail together with the web address link to the work, to [email protected] We will reply to and honor every request. Please notice it may take up to 24 - 48 hours to process your request.