Just five years was enough for changing American foreign policy from “Iraq Liberation Act” to “War on ttrror”! The huhman Right project which started for expanding democracy and defending poor Iraqi people, annoyed by evil dictator, became defending all of the World’s people, in other words, program of attacking Iraq in four days changed to attack for more than four years! “In the mid- 1970s, when American Congress instead of U. S foreign policy paid considerable attention to human rights, all administrations have listed human rights among the official priorities of their foreign policy” (Weiss and etc,2004:77), who could believe US’s claim of Human Right would be an important plea for considering the other countries?
Bill Clinton was a democrat president of America, the only Democrat president between Republican boy and Republican father. Although differences between Clinton and Bush are rooted in their political tendency but I think they had common plea for attacking Iraq, the December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. It was a major flare-up in Iraq disarmament crisis. Clinton who designed this attack stated the cruise missile and bombing attacks to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. March 20of 2003, also is the date of invasion of Iraq in another time, by United States in the program of Bush “ War on Terror” that is created after 11th September and according to his comments one of the elements of the axis of evil. But expanding “American peace” on Iraq has not been done so easily! Yet the conflicts of power were not finished in the country that Clinton and Bush claimed to send Freedom gift for its people. “War Plan Iraq, Ten Reasons against War on Iraq” is the title of Milan Rai’s book who works on the interests of American foreign policy (2002). Milan in this book works on breadth of opposition like the control of oil and some reasons against war like a humanitarian disaster. This is a very interesting point ''How cloud USA, who claims to defend human right in the world, be accused of destroying Human right in Iraq? I am to work on the main differences between discourses of these two presidents for attacking Iraq. So analyzing the discourses help in finding the differences.
Power is a main articulation in Clinton’s discourses. Power and human rights discourses were points in Clinton’s speech in november15, 1998 (1), who gave it in Iraq one month before Iraq Liberation Act. “United Nations Security Council’s'' votes for demanding Saddam Hussein reversed course pointed to human rights discourses and finally the use of “world opinion” for showing isolation of Iraq from the world; “Iraq must accept” according to “once voice of the world” as called by Clinton, are pointed to the power discourse that USA is representative of the world.
Exceptionalism and stereo type also are main points in Clinton's comments that are perceptible easily; talk about “U.N. Security Council” for giving the relevant resolutions for Iraq problem (its weapons of mass destruction), “our willingness” and “our military” for encouraging importation of US nation in this process, are pointed to American exceptionalism, “its weapons” and “it must accept all weapons of mass destruction-related resolutions”(the forth article of conditions that was enforced to Iraq” are rooted in stereo type of thinking that conducted Clinton in his actions.
The Profit of our Century
In competition to Clinton, the discourses of justice and war are more titled in Bush discourses, in December of 2006(2) Bush in the press conference said: “this war on terror is the calling of a new generation”, so Bush, five years after 11th September and the fire of War talked about the Calling, and declared profitably that War on Terror is “calling for new generation”, and it could be said that this discourse also rooted in American Exceptionalism. Also in fifth anniversary of 11th September(3), connection between these two discourses is clear: “With our help, the people of the Middle East are now stepping forward to claim their freedom, from Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut.” I have to add that Bush in his previous comments in this speech explained “our help” with the “war”, the tactic “that America must confront threats before” enemies “reach our (Americans) shores”. So in this time, in Bush’s discourses, American’s interests are important because they are the world’s interests!
From the government to the nations Maybe differences of these two presidents comes from their times! Or their policy! Or the situation of the Middle East! But with attention to analyzing their discourses, I think attention to public opinion is a main point for study; I want to say that in Bush discourses we see War and Justice together, and this is for nothing only convincing the public opinion! Although in Clinton discourses we have power and human right discourses together but his concepts of human right was around the governmental institutions (like UN) not the people, and it is meant that the governments were more important in Clinton discourses than nations.
So it could be said that attention to public opinion is the main difference between Bush and Clinton’s discourses for representing their policy. Another point is changing the American policy in this five years, with this findings I can say that American policy has not changed in these years, just people and their opinion has become more regarded and America yet follows his policy with attacks
1-Rai, M, (2002), War Plan Iraq, Ten Reasons against War on Iraq, London, Verso
2-Weiss, T and etc, ( 2004)Wars on Terrorism and Iraq, Human Rights, Unilateralism, and U.S. Foreign Policy, London, Routledge
Web Sights:
1-http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/15/clinton.speech/index.html?eref=sitesearch
2-http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-1.html
3- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html | |
