Studying George H.W. Bush's Foreign Policy Record

---

George H.W. Bush: Served as President from 1989-1993

Personal Characteristics: Gracious, Faithful, Underestimated

Gracious in Defeat: Following his loss to Bill Clinton in the 1992 general election as incumbent, one would be understanding if George Bush were inconsiderate of the incoming administration. However, Bush took the loss in stride, like a man should when overseeing the transfer of power. His letter left for Clinton highlights some of Bush’s humility. In a short, succinct letter, Bush said many things while writing few words, stating, “Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you. Good luck,” While it was customary for outgoing president’s to leave a letter showing support for the incoming president, it is notable in this case that Bush was gracious in defeat while losing as an incumbent. Having the humility to accept your loss and move on is something Americans should no longer take for granted.

A Chip off the Ole Block: George H.W. Bush, like his sons after him, followed in his father’s footsteps as a politician. Bush made sure to ingratiate himself with “the values of his parents and teachers at Phillips Andover Academy: propriety, service, and an Episcopalian version of Muscular Christianity.” 

Furthermore, Bush utilized his family ties to the best of his abilities, as “he remained a devout Episcopalian, socialized with other transplanted Ivy Leaguers, and used family connections to finance his petroleum exploration and equipment companies. Ultimately settling in Houston, he ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1964, but won a House seat in 1966.” While it would take a while for Bush to make his way up the political ranks, as he failed to win his Senate bid again in 1970, he was persistent and ended up becoming an even more successful politician than his father. 

Looked Down Upon at Times: Bush was a mild-mannered man who stuck to his convictions, which sometimes led to him being wrongly criticized. While serving as Vice President to Reagan, “His loyalty, propriety, and boyish enthusiasm led critics to label him a ‘wimp,’ but they underestimated his ambition, shrewdness, and occasional unscrupulousness. He wooed the Republican Right, established himself as Reagan’s heir apparent, and won the presidency in 1988.” So, while Bush may have been soft-spoken, his actions came across loud and clear.

The International Context:

Soviet Reforms: Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and after Mikhail Gorbachev overtook the position of Soviet General Secretary, multiple reforms were enacted in an attempt to reignite the Soviet Union economically. Glasnost was the first major reform implemented by Gorbachev. The policy eased restrictions on the press, suppressed groups were allowed to meet, more emigration was allowed, along with some low level elections being held. However, there were some obvious unintended consequences of this newfound freedom, as some states within the Soviet Union not only allowed for elections to be held, but even permitted some non-communist political parties to exist within their governments, eroding a major chunk of the Soviet iceberg. 

The second policy was that of Perestroika, which introduced sweeping economic and political reforms to the Soviet Union. Within the Union, economic decision making became more decentralized, and a capitalist market was utilized, at least somewhat. The second aspect of this policy had to do with shifts in foreign policy, as the Soviet Union chose to no longer hold an antagonistic relationship with the West and America, seeking instead greater cooperation on major issues. Furthermore, the Soviet Union began to back off on some of its defense agreements with key allies, such as Cuba. The Cold War was now over, and the iceberg that was the Soviet Union began to melt like an ice cream cone on a hot summer day in Texas. 

The Fall of the Soviet Union: After the reforms were introduced into the Soviet Union, there were clear indications of where things were going. As time went on, the Soviet economy was also struggling greatly to maintain its position with America. Gorbachev then organized a meeting with the leaders of the 16 states representing the Soviet Union, in which semi-independence was granted to them. To communist hardliners, this was unacceptable. Gorbachev was then captured and a coup was attempted, which ultimately failed. Following Gorbachev’s return to power, the Soviet Union began to crumble from within. 

The first domino to fall was Poland. After 8 years of martial law within the state, the communist government finally caved in to the Polish Labor Union, otherwise called “Solidarity,” led by Lech Walsea. Because of this, other states, especially those in the Baltics, followed suit, along with Russia and the Ukraine, effectively ending the Soviet Union, which is considered to be the last European state to uphold the tide of nationalism and anti-imperialism that encapsulated the twentieth century.

The Tiananmen Square Massacre: A horrendous event of killing its citizens by the Chinese government, this massacre greatly disturbed democratic powers around the globe. The event occurred in 1989, “in Beijing, tanks and troops violently crushed an indigenous protest movement. Hundreds perished; thousands more were imprisoned or eventually exiled.” Furthermore, Henry Kissinger argued that the massacre “had been more complex than a simple anti-Communist revolt, having at least three causes: the revolt of students based on Western principles of democracy; workers rebelling to remove, or at least to alleviate, the inequities, abuses, and dislocations generated by economic reform; and the internal struggle within the Communist party largely about the political consequences of the reform of the economy.” The resulting reforms in China following the massacre were mixed. “Deng had to fight, therefore, on two fronts: against the corruption tempted by reform, and against the survivors of Maoism insisting on their version of a Communist economy. While he won the battle in the economic field, he settled for a continued Communist dominance in the political arena. Deng opted to live with the paradox of insisting on political stability in order to complete an economic and social revolution.” 

The Balkans: The Balkans became a very tense region following the collapse of the Soviet Union, becoming not only a headache for the Bush Administration, but the UN states, as well. Michael Fowler and Jessica Fryrear discussed the unrest in the region, stating, “In 1990, reacting to events in Serbia, Croatia elected its own nationalist leader, Franjo Tudjman, on a platform that included anti-Serbia, pro-Croatia provisions. In Bosnia, the most ethnically diverse of the republics, three principal ethnic groups– Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Muslims– vied for power in a contest complicated by religious differences and the irredentist objectives of Serbians and Croatians outside of Bosnia.” 

Key Foreign Policies:

Relations with China: The Tiananmen Square massacre made it quite difficult for the Bush Administration to decide on how to move forward with American relations with China. Relations in the end took a downslide compared to the close relations of the past couple of administrations. “During the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, the political and psychological basis for constructive Sino-American relations was gradually weakening. President Bush, who, in the mid-1970s before the establishment of diplomatic relations had served as head of the United States Liaison Office in Beijing, sought to keep the relationship on some sort of even keel even after the events in Tiananmen Square.” So, while Bush decided to maintain relations with China, the recently warm relations between the two states began to cool off. Clashes between Serbia and Croatia on the grounds of ethnic cleansing then followed, creating even greater unrest and heavily impacting the Serbian economy.  

Hesitant Towards the Balkans: While the Bush Administration was adamant about intervening in Kuwait, which led to the Persian Gulf War, they were much more hesitant to hold the same policy regarding the Balkan states. “Unlike the situation in Kuwait, the United States did not perceive fighting in the Balkans to threaten its vital interests. Hence, it was neither prepared to weld together an intervention force, nor to accept undue costs. Moreover, Russia had long been allied with the Serbs and was willing to block UN action harmful to its interests.” So, based on its desire to maintain good standing with Russia following the Soviet Union's collapse, the Bush Administration decided to remain largely hands-off at first, not at all acting like the interventionist presidents that preceded him. 

Back to the events in the Balkans, “When Muslim representatives within the Bosnian government used their numerical superiority to declare Bosnian independence, civil war ensued within Bosnia.” Finally, “The conflict with Bosnia soon devolved into a tangled mass of different military forces fighting different campaigns against different opponents. Serbs first attacked Croats, just as they had within Croatia, and the Bosnian government, lacking much in the way of military resources, failed to help the Croats.” So, all of this unrest meant that the UN had a major issue on its hands to clean up. Bush made sure to not be sucked into the conflict as a mediator because of America’s unipolar status, but rather act as a cog in the machine of the UN Security Council. 

Like Eisenhower and Ford: After he became president. Bush favored more moderate policies compared to that of Reagan or Nixon. Instead, “Like his fellow moderate Republicans, Eisenhower and Ford, Bush pursued both détente with the Soviet Union and a policy of old-fashioned intervention in the third world, as the invasion of Panama and declaration of an international; ‘drug war' illustrated.” 

Prudent Realism: Prudent realism was the policy in which Bush’s distancing from Reagan became complete, centralizing his initiatives to be more in line with Eisenhower and Ford. Prudent realism was intended to bring on a more constrained foreign policy following the Reagan Administration. It was supposed to appeal to those who desired a more limited government, and especially moved away from supporting the Contras that got the prior administration in so much trouble. The policy was also implemented in hope of gaining more bipartisanship on foreign issues, with Nicaragua at the forefront. This, for the most part, did succeed, as peace came to Nicaragua as the Sadinistas were ousted in favor of Violeta Chamorro, the first female Head of State in Nicaragua. Prudent realism would also resurface again prior to the Persian Gulf War, as President Bush decided to go to Congress for permission to intervene in Kuwait.

Positive Achievements:

The Invasion of Panama: This was a highly controversial intervention by the Bush campaign, especially with the United Nations. However, based on Bush’s overall record in interventions, I see this as more of a positive achievement than a negative drawback. However, let’s get the negatives out the way first. According to Andrew Glass, the act was not popular within the UN General Assembly, as “Some countries charged that the United States had committed an act of aggression by invading Panama and sought to conceal a new manifestation of its past interventionist policies in Latin America. On Dec. 29, 1989, the U.N. General Assembly voted 75-20, with 40 abstentions, to condemn the invasion as ‘a flagrant violation of international law.’” 

While this was a pretty strong condemnation by the UN, with obvious merit based on international law, I still find that the intervention was justifiable from America’s perspective. Bush ordered the invasion, dubbed “Operation Just Cause,” because he felt it was necessary for “safeguarding the lives of the approximately 35,000 U.S. citizens living in Panama; defending democracy and human rights; combating drug trafficking in a country that had become a center for drug money laundering and a transit point for drug trafficking to the U.S. and Europe; and protecting the integrity of the treaties that President Jimmy Carter had signed with Panamanian authorities, which called for the Panama Canal to be turned over to them in 2000.” While this was a strong justification, there was one flaw. The Treaty between the Carter Administration and the Panamanians, which allowed for the U.S. to defend the canal if necessary, only permitted intervention if the threat to the canal were external, not internal, making the point of using the Treaty as justification, moot. However, the other reasons could be seen as permissible, along with the fact that Manuel Noriega, the leader targeted by the Operation, had been indicted on drug trafficking charges in the United States, creating a tricky legal issue. 

The invasion itself, though, was successful, and highly popular within the American public, a hard thing to pull off based on America’s military record and subsequent support from the electorate during the Cold War. Noriega was taken by U.S. officials and sentenced to 17 years in American prison. 

The Persian Gulf War: While there is much context surrounding the Persian Gulf War, I want to focus strictly on President Bush’s moves in this conflict. Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Bush strongly condemned the violence, and smartly went to the UN Security Council for approval to intervene. At first, only multilateral sanctions were implemented on top of America's own unilateral sanctions. However, this changed once the brutality of the Iraqi army in Kuwait went on full display. Following congressional approval to intervene, Bush implemented “Operation Desert Storm,” in which America routed Iraq out of Kuwait. Following this removal, I think Bush truly showed his restraint here. Instead of choosing to continue the destruction of the Iraqi army into its own state, Bush decided to stay put, favoring an Iraqi surrender and ceasefire, instead. 

Restraint: The sequence of moves by Bush during the Persian Gulf War were different from many other presidents during the Cold War, including someone even like Eisenhower. Based on the amount of interventions that were carried out by previous administrations, along with the extent to which they maintained the interventions, I feel as if Bush was completely in the right in this case, despite the criticism he received by those from the anti-war movement. Consider also the intervention in Panama: this, while argued to be a violation of international law, was justified well enough from the American perspective. Furthermore, unlike many presidents during the Cold War, Bush had a strong sense of knowing when to pull out of conflicts, unlike Nixon, for example. The ability to not only show restraint, but understand the limits of intervention, is quite commendable. I can think of many occasions throughout these report cards in which I was truly baffled by presidential interventions in countries that were not worth the trouble. This is not to say that America should never intervene, but picking your spots rather than putting your foot down at every opportunity is, in my opinion, a much smarter strategy. 

Negative Drawbacks:

Short-Sightedness Following the Persian Gulf War: While I found Bush’s moves during the Cold War to be limited and intellectually sound, he did make one mistake following the war. After the war, the Iraqis became more aggressive by continuously taking down political opponents and beginning to refuse UN inspection teams from checking the Iraqi army. Once Bush noticed that the peace initiatives implemented by the UN were failing in Iraq, he decided to join with Saudi Arabia to place U.S. soldiers at the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. While this was effective in deterring Iraq from invading, it had one extremely negative externality: Osama bin Laden. Once Osama and other Islamic fundamentalists saw this sizable military presence, it set them off, setting the stage for future terrorist attacks on America that were led by Osama.

The Iran-Contra Scandal: Although President Reagan and his lackeys mainly received the greatest consequences of the Iran-Contra scandal, Bush, who was Vice President at the time, was not innocent. According to the Walsh Report findings on the scandal, the “Independent Counsel’s investigation did not develop evidence that proved that Vice President Bush violated any criminal statute. Contrary to his public pronouncements, however, he was fully aware of the Iran arms sales…” While Bush cannot hold as much blame as Reagan or the officials who carried out the scandal, as he was only Vice President, he still lied about his knowledge of the sales. This scandal could possibly have been why Bush decided to distance himself from Reagan once he became president, especially regarding foreign policy. However, it still stands that Bush deserves criticism for his role in the scandal for not only failing to report the wrongdoings, but by standing by and allowing the arms sales to continue. 

Final Grade: A-/ This grade could be surprising considering how much I knocked Reagan for the Iran-Contra scandal. However, while it is still a blemish on Bush’s record, I understand the limits of what power he truly had to stop the arms sales. Although Bush’s record is not extensive, both in terms of positives and negatives since he was a one-term president, I felt he had a solid record, especially compared to his contemporaries in this report card. I believe Bush was correct to intervene in both Panama and Kuwait. Furthermore, showing restraint following the acts of interventions proved to the international community that America would not be involved with, nor drag out unnecessary interventions. His failure to understand the ramifications of placing troops at the Iraq-Saudi border would pay dearly, but were hard to foresee at the time. In short, George H.W. Bush was a competent successor to the rocky Reagan Administration. 

References:

1. “Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Welsh Reports on Official Wrong-Doing in Iran-Contra, 1992,” in Dennis Merrill and Thomas Paterson, eds., Major Problems in American Foreign Relations Since 1914, 7th ed., vol. I (Independence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009), 309-0.
2. “George H.W. Bush,” in Leo Ribuffo, in Reader's Companion, Foner and Garraty, eds., 138-39.
3. U.S. Embassy Telegram, “Tiananmen Square, June 1989,” in Engel, et al., eds., America in the World: A History in Documents from the War with Spain to the War on Terror (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 328-29.
4. Henry Kissinger, “Relations with China: The Historical Context,” Does America Need a Foreign Policy?(New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 134-45.
5. George H.W. Bush’s Note to Bill Clinton During Their Transition (unpublished document, January 20, 1993).
6. Michael Fowler and Jessica Fryrear, “Collective Security and the Fighting in the Balkans,” Northern Kentucky Law Review, 30, 3 (2003): 299-302, 320-45.