This thesis discusses the foreign policy of Bush and Obama administration with emphasis on the specific cooperation with the European Union. The aim of this thesis is to describe the difference between Bush and Obama administration using comparative analysis. There were found significant differences between these two administrations and further discussed ways which lead to the changes of the American foreign policy.

This study is about the Bush-administration after the events of 9/11. Despite the fact that Israel-Palestine had no connection to 9/11 or Al-qaida, the Bush-administration changed their foreign policy regarding the Israel-Palestine issue. This thesis studies the motives behind the administration's change using a theoretical based motive analysis. The analysis intends to provide motive-based explanations with the help of international relations (IR) theory. To reduce the scope of the analysis, the thesis investigates if the security, identity and solidarity motives from the IR-theories realism and constructivism could be a possible cause for the change in policy. This study uses the Bush-administration’s own statements which were found at the White House archives, among others, to explore the motives correspondence. The analysis concludes that the motives: security,identity and solidarity, have been motives for the administration’s change in the Israel-Palestine issue and the motives have shown correspondence with reality. Both theories then show relevance for being able to study this issue and define motives from. This study also acknowledges the value of combining realism and constructivism to analyze this case.

No description available.

In my thesis, I analyze the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama in 1989-2010. Upon comparing their China policies, I concluded that the approach of the United States to China is inconsistent, mainly due to the changing patterns of power, conflicting value systems and the growing importance of commercial interests in the relationship.

Pendant huit ans [de 2000 à 2008], on nous a dit et répété que tout ce que l’administration Bush a prétendu et fait [de la lutte contre « l’axe du mal » à la campagne anti-terroriste internationale, et de la guerre préemptive ou préventive à la « démocratisation » du Moyen-Orient par tous les moyens…etc.,] trouve sa source dans l’idéologie morale des néoconservateurs qui cherchent à « rendre le monde meilleur », et à « moraliser » la vie politique nationale et internationale, notamment par une rénovation des valeurs [conservatrices] américaines et par un engagement plus actif vis-à-vis des problèmes internationaux.Mais à la lumière des constats que nous avons été amenés à faire lors de notre investigation, il devient clair que : contrairement à ce qui est largement répandu, ce n’est ni l’idéologie morale des néoconservateurs ni le bloc religieux et messianique allié du Président Bush qui guident son action au Moyen-Orient et ailleurs, mais l’économie. En effet, les clés de la politique Bush au Moyen-Orient ne sont idéologiques qu’en apparence. En réalité, elles sont à découvrir dans les intérêts économiques et financiers que cette administration a cherché à défendre, à protéger, et à acquérir. Ces clés sont à trouver dans l’argent des contributions qui financent les campagnes électorales. Elles sont également celles du grand Capital, de l’Amérique des corporations industrielles et financières, des multinationales, des lobbies et autres groupes de pression qui dominent la vie politique aux Etats-Unis et influencent sa politique au Moyen-Orient jusqu’à la colorer de leurs propres couleurs. / For eight years [from 2000 through 2008], we were told repeatedly that what the Bush administration did and claimed [from the fight against the “axis of evil” to the campaign against international terrorism, and from the pre-emptive or preventive war to the “democratization” of the Middle East by any means, etc.], has its roots in the Neoconservative moral ideology seeking to “make the world better”, and “moralize” national and international politics, including a renewal of [conservative] American values and more an active commitment towards international issues. But in the light of the findings that we have been led to from our investigation, it becomes clear that contrary to what is widespread, it is neither moral ideology of the Neoconservatives nor the religious and messianic bloc allied to President Bush that guided his actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, but the economy. Indeed, the keys to the Bush policy in the ! Middle East are ideological only in appearance. In fact, they are to be discovered in the economic and financial interests that the administration has sought to defend, protect and acquire. These keys are to be found in money contributions that finance political campaigns. They are also those of big business, the American industrial and financial corporations, multinationals, lobbies and other pressure groups that dominate political life in the United States and the influence they exert on the Middle East policy.

北韓問題是二十世紀延續至今卻始終未能解決的複雜議題，這是因為牽涉的因素眾多：南北韓、周邊國家以及國際的考量使「維持現狀」與「模糊」政策成為處理北韓問題可以接受的模式。但事實上，吾人必須認知到在此議題上，最重要的主角仍是北韓與美國，但顯然雙方各有盤算而不能或不願直接解決。因此本文旨在探討2001至2011年美國對北韓之政策，且嘗試在現今相關領域的多數美國立場中，盡可能尋求以相對公允、同理心的角度分析問題，而非美國觀點的一言堂。本文以法國戰略學家薄富爾(André Beaufre)之「行動戰略」(Strategy of Action) 理論作為研究途徑，輔以大量相關數據資料及專著，用意在於平衡地討論美國戰略並批判其中好壞。 本文認為，小布希與歐巴馬政府對北韓政策目標一致，但戰略有所不同。受制於北韓核報復攻擊、中東戰事、經濟與他國因素，美國難以動武直取北韓，因此必須從軍事外的選項著手。筆者從軍事、政治、經濟與外交面向，以政治診斷(political diagnosis)及戰略診斷(strategic diagnosis)探討兩屆政府對北韓之行動方案。小布希和歐巴馬政府在戰略應用上符合薄富爾的觀點，但在架構面上卻有缺失，最終由於無法促使中國相助，以及自身立場的謬誤，導致兩屆政府北韓政策之失誤。 / The North Korea issue remains unresolved, and the only acceptable options for the neighbor countries are the status quo policy and the policy of deliberate ambiguity. However, it has to be acknowledged that the most important roles are North Korea and the U.S., and it is obvious they have different plans in their minds. The main idea of this thesis is to study the U.S. Policy toward North Korea (2001-2011), and present unbiased points of view instead of only the U.S. aspect. This thesis uses the Strategy of Action of André Beaufre, a French Strategist, as the research method, to analyze data and studies to fairly find out the pros and cons of the U.S. Policy toward North Korea. This thesis shows that the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration share the same goals but different strategies toward North Korea. The U.S. have difficulty in using military action since it tries to avoid North Korea taking nuclear retaliation, and the war in the middle east and the sinking economy also limit the ability of the U.S. government. This thesis analyzes the U.S. policy toward North Korea from the aspects of military power, politics, economy and diplomacy, and it uses political diagnosis and strategic diagnosis as the approaches to examine the action plans of both Bush and Obama administrations. The research shows that the actions plans match the point of view of André Beaufre strategically, but the flaws of the plan structure, the failure to have China take a stance against North Korea and the illogicalness of the government position finally led the U.S. policy toward North Korea to a frustrated end.

<p>Abstract</p><p>The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the way George W. Bush used moral metaphors to intensify the language in his statements on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Three moral metaphors are presented within two different models that are applied on the data.</p><p>The collected material for the metaphors is constituted of cognitive linguistic books from prominent linguists, such as George Lakoff, Alan Cruse and William Croft, and the data is collected from the official White House website. The scientific method used in this study has been qualitative text analysis where the hermeneutic approach has been an essential part of it.</p><p>The main question: In what way did George W. Bush use moral metaphors in his statements to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom?, resulted in use of moral metaphors that sermons people’s moral values, depict Saddam Hussein’s characteristics as immoral, activate people’s moral priorities to help the Iraqi people, and addresses both conservatives and liberals in America.</p><p>The conclusion of my study is that President Bush deliberately intensified the language in his statements through moral metaphors to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.</p><p>Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics, Metaphor, Figurative Language, Operation Iraqi Freedom, War on Terror, George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, USA, Iraq, Qualitative Text Analysis, Hermeneutics.</p>

拉丁裔的人口數量已於2002年凌駕非洲裔成為美國最大的少數族群，2004年杭廷頓（Samuel P. Huntington）在《我們是誰？對美國國家認同的挑戰》（Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity）ㄧ書中嚴厲譴責拉丁裔移民進入美國後，倡議兩種語言與兩種文化，此將危及美國國家「盎格魯－新教」（Anglo-Protestantism）文化，更將侵蝕美國的國家利益與威脅美國在國際社會的霸權地位。由於目前國內學界對拉丁裔研究多為單一族裔的研究，本文藉由比較性研究呈現古巴裔與墨西哥裔的不同發展歷程。研究內容涵蓋古巴裔與墨西哥裔對美國的影響，以及布希政府對不同族裔的移民政策研究。研究結果可發現古巴裔與墨西哥裔的影響能力與影響層面有所不同，而布希政府看待古巴裔與墨西哥裔的態度也有不同。 針對古巴裔與墨西哥裔影響的研究，超過六成的古巴裔集中在佛州，因此古巴裔在佛州的影響力明顯，而分佈廣闊的墨西哥裔卻能挾人數之眾影響全國性議題。此外，重視外交議題的古巴裔也與重視內政議題（教育為主）的墨西哥裔不同。另就古巴裔與墨西哥裔的身分、認同與母國關係也有不同的發展歷程，因而導引出布希政府不同的移民政策。古巴裔部分，因為古巴裔的公民身分與美古雙邊關係發展，使得古巴裔在移民過程中擁有較多的優惠；墨西哥裔部分，墨西哥裔美國人重視雙語教育政策，而墨西哥裔非法移民則期待移民大赦與臨時工計畫。然而，布希政府不僅反對雙語教育與全面的移民大赦，表態支持的臨時工計畫卻受到參眾兩院無法達成協議而停滯。 / The population of Latinos has exceeded African American and become the largest minority group in the U.S in 2002. In the book “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity,” Samuel P. Huntington condemn Latinos as advocating double language and double culture, and this will ultimately endanger the Anglo-Protestantism culture of U.S. Moreover, the increasing entrance of Latinos into the U.S will erode America's national interest and influence America's hegemony in international society. Since domestic research has focused on studying single ethnic group-Latinos, this research tries to present the different developmental process of Cubans and Mexicans via comparative studies. This paper discusses Cubans and Mexicans' impact on America, and George W. Bush's immigration policy toward different ethnic groups. From my research result, I have found that Cubans and Mexicans’ influential power and level as being different, and President Bush’s policy toward Cubans and Mexicans is different as well. More than sixty percent Cubans lives in Florida, which implies that Cubans has strong impact on Florida. On the other side, the massive number of Mexicans can influence national policy with its national wide population distribution. In addition, Cubans is more concerned about foreign policy toward Castro regime, while Mexicans concerns more about internal issues, especially education. Cubans and Mexicans also have different development process regarding their status, identity, and relationship with home countries, thus leading Bush’s distinct policy toward this two groups. For the Cubans, because of citizenship rate and U.S.-Cuba relationship, Cubans has more privileges during immigration. To the Mexicans, Mexican American is concerned about bilingual education, and Mexican illegal labors have focus on amnesty temporary worker program. However, Bush administration not only opposes bilingual education and a comprehensive immigration amnesty, but the temporary worker program is also delayed by the Senate and the House of Representative.

Thesis (M.A.)--Miami University, Dept. of Speech Communication, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 84-95).

The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether the individual political leader is important for the analysis of international relations. Traditionally the focus of investigation in international relations has been on the nation-state, or the systems level, and as a result the individual level has been somewhat neglected. Using the theory of political psychology there is a possibility of finding nuances that might not be found if the focus of the investigation is on the nation-state. With the help of key concepts such as personality, emotion, cognition, and social identity decision making that has affected world politics have been examined. An empirical examination of the political psychology has been made by applying the theory to a case study, George W Bush. By applying the theory of political psychology to the decision making process used by George W Bush and his Administration it will be shown that the individual can impact world politics, especially in the case of the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, one of the flaws of the theory of political psychology, its problem in handling the concept of global terrorism, is briefly discussed. The conclusion that has been drawn in this thesis is that the individual level of analysis is just as important as the systems level or the domestic level of analysis.