Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Bush Doctrine
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Unilateralism=== Unilateral elements were evident early in Bush's presidency. Krauthammer, who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", deployed "unilateralism", in February 2001 to refer to Bush's increased unilateralism in foreign policy, specifically regarding his decision to [[Abm treaty#US withdrawal|withdraw from the ABM treaty]].<ref name=CNN_Krauthammer_20010305>{{cite news | last=Krauthammer |first=Charles |title=The Bush doctrine: In American foreign policy, a new motto: Don't ask. Tell |url=http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/03/05/doctrine.html |publisher=CNN |date=February 26, 2001| access-date=2008-09-12}}</ref><ref name=WashingtonPost_Krauthammer_20080912>{{cite news |last=Krauthammer |first=Charles |title=Charlie Gibson's Gaffe |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 12, 2008| access-date=2008-09-12}}</ref> There is some evidence that Bush's willingness for the U.S. to act unilaterally came even earlier. The ''International Journal of Peace Studies'' 2003 article "The Bush administration's image of Europe: From ambivalence to rigidity" states:<ref name="eubushadm">{{cite journal |url=http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol8_1/David%20and%20Ramel.htm |title=The Bush Administrations's Image of Europe: From Ambivalence to Rigidity |journal=International Journal of Peace Studies |volume=8 |issue=1 |first=Charles-Philippe |last=David |author2=Frédéric Ramel |date=Spring–Summer 2003 |access-date=2008-09-19 |archive-date=2008-07-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704055519/http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol8_1/David%20and%20Ramel.htm }}</ref> {{quote|The [[U.S. Republican Party|Republican Party]]'s platform in the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000|2000 presidential elections]] set the administration's tone on this issue. It called for a dramatic expansion of [[NATO]] not only in [[Eastern Europe]] (with the [[Baltic States]], [[Romania]], [[Bulgaria]] and [[Albania]]) but also, and most significantly, in the [[Middle East]], the [[Caucasus]] and [[Central Asia]]. The purpose is to develop closer cooperation within NATO in dealing with geopolitical problems from the Middle East to [[Eurasia]]. The program therefore takes a broad and rather fuzzy view of Europe. It would be premature at this stage to say that the Bush administration has had a fundamental change of heart and shed its long-ingrained reflexes in dealing with [[Russia]]. When it comes to the future of Europe, both Americans and Europeans differ on key issues. Those differences seem to point toward three fundamental values which underpin the Bush administration's image of Europe. The first is [[unilateralism]], of which the [[missile shield]] is a particularly telling example. The American position flies in the face of the European approach, which is based on [[ABM treaty|ABM talks]] and [[multilateralism]]. An opposition is taking shape here between the leading European capitals, which want to deal with the matter by judicial means, and the Americans, who want to push ahead and create a [[fait accompli]].}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)