For the past decade, the US has had to deal with the North Korean nuclear crisis. Despite its aggressive rhetoric, the Bush administration has actually been fairly moderate in its dealings with North Korea. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are draining most of America’s military capabilities to Southwest Asia, creating an additional reason for the reason for the US to try to avoid a conflict with North Korea. Having failed in its attempt to prevent North Korea from developing its nuclear (...)  lire suite

Considering the Iraq crisis in 2003, it is legitimate to ask oneself whether NATO is still an alliance, in the classical meaning of the word. The Bush Administration has favored a one-time coalition over the traditional Atlantic alliance. Yet the Iraqi case only revealed a progressive evolution of the American standpoint on NATO, since the failed interventions in Kosovo, and including the rejection of the help NATO offered in the aftermath of September 11th. Using a historical reminder, the (...)  lire suite

The Iraqi question does not occupy the same space in media and politics in Europe and in the United States. Whereas Europeans were still debating over the legitimacy of the American intervention, the war in Iraq has occupied a relatively unimportant space in the American presidential campaign. The war had been well sold, its calendar had been efficiently set ; the sinking and the tortures have not been enough to alter the image of a determined President, the only shield against terrorism. (...)  lire suite

This paper is an assessment of the role of foreign policy in American domestic politics. President Bush succeeded in instrumentalising to its own benefit the « rally round the flag » feeling in the fight against terrorism. Besides, he managed to set up a strongly united and ideological administration whose foreign policy stance is very much a militarized form of « wilsonism ». The Democratic Party is unable to come up with a leader who would represent more than angry Democrats, the way (...)  lire suite

American support for Israel has grown progressively. After the Strategic Alliance of the Reagan Administration and President Clinton’s political sympathy for the Israeli society and Rabin’s policy, different factors are at stake with the George W. Bush Administration : both countries’ biblical foundations, a religious sympathy that goes beyond American Judaism, solidarity with liberal institutions, and above all a radical rejection of terrorism. International considerations and electoral (...)  lire suite

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, and to the surprise of many, President Bush is embracing foreign aid. The Bush Administration is increasing US military aid to allies in the « war against terrorism », assisting in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, expanding the size of the Peace Corps, rejoining UNESCO and, most unexpectedly, announcing big initiatives to fight HIV/AIDS and promote economic growth in developing countries. An emerging concern, however, is that the (...)  lire suite

There is a Francophobic attitude in Washington, as there is an anti-American tradition in France. This attitude is conducive to an open ambivalence about French intentions, especially with regard to a European construction that successive American administrations have encouraged over the years as an essential component of a Euro-Atlantic edifice that would be united, strong, and stable. This attitude also often leads the United States to reduce transatlantic differences to their sole (...)  lire suite

The United States, having been the driving force of post-War multilateral system, now consider multilateralism as a « secure » practice, allowing them to validate an « undeniable leadership position over a global alliance ». In this configuration, it is admitted that American interests meet world interests : the United States would be performing a messianic job for the well-being of humanity, while serving their own national interests. In this perspective, Congress has endeavoured to (...)  lire suite

In a book published in 1984, John S. Saloma wrote about the existence in American domestic politics, of a new major political force. He also added that if such a force remained unchallenged, the « new conservative labyrinth » would pull the country’s political centre sharply to the right. Today, this labyrinth is more important, more sophisticated, and as far as defence matters are concerned, more influential than it ever was. Conservative and neo-conservative networks control the Pentagon. (...)  lire suite

Does the appointment of certain figures from the oil industry at key positions in the Bush Administration create a convergence between state and company strategies in the Caspian Sea region ? Even though many assumptions have been made in that regard, conflicts of interests are still dividing the US Administration and major oil companies over the construction of new pipelines in Central Asia and the Caucasus. If there has not been, for the moment, any basic shift in the US pipeline (...)  lire suite