Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis
Authors
1 PhD. Student of International Relations , Khuzestan Science and Research Pardis, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran. Department of Political Science, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
2 Assistant Prof. at Political Sciences Department, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
Abstract
Highlights
Introduction
Given that a change of administration in the United States inevitably leads to changes in making and executing the country’s foreign policy, the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration impacted America’s foreign policy. As a result, Trump’s strict policies replaced Obama’s moderate ones. Obama was able to pursue an active foreign policy and even develop working relationships with rogue states. However, rather than concentrating on dialogue and diplomacy, Trump sought to reinforce the country’s foreign policy by re-emphasizing national sovereignty and competition with rogue leaders. During Obama’s presidency, issues such as increasing the effectiveness of international organizations and laws, combating terrorism, developing new regional and international mechanisms with US partners and allies, supporting the continuation of US global leadership, and expanding democracy, human rights, free trade, cyber and human security and many other issues were considered in the strategies related to the US national security. On the other hand, Donald Trump not only fundamentally altered the course of Obama’s foreign policy but also wholly changed the traditional American approaches to the world order. A combination of unilateralism, isolationism and authoritarianism formed the basics of Trump's foreign policy approach to the world order. In this combinatorial framework, authoritarianism assumed a prominent position in American foreign policy. Trump considered increases in the military budget and unilateralism essential to achieving the objectives of the United States, even if they were met with the disapproval of America’s allies. He preferred support for powerful international leaders to defense of liberal democracy. Trump challenged free trade by promising to withdraw from trade treaties and agreements and suspending some agreements, and questioned America's military commitments to its allies which were based on US military presence in various countries around the world to support US allies. Therefore, Trump’s foreign policy and America's approach to the world order during his presidency can be analyzed through the lens of negative dimensions rather than positive ones.
Methodology
This study was carried out using the descriptive-analytical method. In order to examine its hypothesis, the required information and data were collected from printed and online sources and evaluated using the propositions of the theories of defensive and offensive realism. These data were used to find an answer to the following question: How can the US approach toward the world order under Obama's and Trump’s administrations be explained using the theories of offensive and defensive realism? To answer the question, this hypothesis was provided: What distinguished these American presidents from each other were only their management styles, priorities, and definitions of America's approach to the structure of the world order. This study aimed to explain the differences in American approach to the world order in the Obama and Trump administrations as well as the effects of their approaches on the world order.
Findings
The important element in Obama’s foreign policy was redesigning America’s role in the world by taking into account the limited resources. Therefore, his administration adjusted its macroeconomic policy along these lines. First, he tried to improve US relations with Russia and cooperate with it to resolve some international issues and crises. Second, he sought to shift the focus of US attention from the Middle East and other parts of the world (East Asia). Obama’s foreign policy priority was the Far East because he believed that the importance of the Middle East would decrease due to developments in the field of energy and rising oil and gas production in the Americas. However, despite his devotion to pragmatic principles and his special attention to national interest and US military power, Obama’s policies boosted multilateralism, diplomacy, and international cooperation and increased the role played by international organizations such as the UN. Enhancing the use of soft power and smart power alongside hard power improved the positive and constructive role the United States played in the structure of the world order during his residency. However, Obama’s actions in reducing US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and focusing more on domestic reconstruction projects, refraining from interfering in Syrian affairs and ignoring Russia's actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and, in general, reducing confrontation and increasing cooperation with Russia and China prepared the ground for the change in the role played by the US on the global stage.
Trump's foreign policy reflected a mix of neo-Jacksonism and greater focus on domestic policies together with some unpredictable behaviors and an attempt to use economic leverage as a foreign policy tool of the United States. This strategy aimed to change the behaviors of the targeted actors. The rationale for this type of policy for dealing with the target actors was mainly to contain these countries by using coercive economic mechanisms. Trump's foreign policy priority was to adjust a series of power-oriented relationships with world superpowers such as Russia and China. In dealing with global and regional powers, his strategy was always based on protest approaches –attitudes that are justified based on modern deterrence and display of power. Trump's deterrence policy was based on reforming the behaviors of countries and putting them on the path desired by the US, and expanding military and economic power as leverage. The verbal tension between Washington and Pyongyang, as well as actions against Bashar al-Assad, can be analyzed as examples of displaying US power to the international and regional actors. On the other hand, Trump criticized international institutions and organizations such as the EU and NATO. He said that they lacked the necessary efficiency and US presence in Europe to protect European countries ran counter to American interests. Consequently, he stated that NATO member countries had to stick to their commitments and increase their contributions to collective defense. Thus, during Trump's presidency, the US more easily violated its commitments in cases where institutionalization was still nascent (such as the Iran and Paris accords, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership) than in cases where they were well developed (such as the WTO, NAFTA, and the UN).
Conclusion
According to the results, despite Obama's observance of the principles of realism, his foreign policy strengthened the functional capacities of international organizations and institutions by paying special and intelligent attention to internal US interests and military power, and the importance of diplomacy and soft power. Trump's foreign policy, on the other hand, increased the importance of hard power, decreased the importance of diplomacy and negotiation, reduced the importance of international institutions, facilitated the trend of moving towards a multipolar order, and increased pessimism about security trends, occurrence of new regional and internal arms races and, finally, the degree of differences.
Keywords
Main Subjects
', './data/isjq/coversheet/101681081416.jpg'))