Ask experts to talk objectively about evaluating and comparing Clinton and Bush.

Similarities and differences of foreign policies between Bush and Clinton. ?

The adjustment of Bush's China policy will be limited, and conservative nationalist ideology will make it difficult for Bush to return to Clinton's China policy.

Although there are various views on Bush's foreign policy, they can be divided into two categories according to the level of analysis. One kind takes Bush himself as the research object and thinks that Bush's diplomatic experience is insufficient and his foreign policy is still in the adjustment period and has not yet been finalized; The other takes the administrative collective of George W. Bush's government as the research object, and thinks that George W. Bush's foreign policy originates from * * * and the party's political tradition, so the general direction of his foreign policy has been set, and it will be fine-tuned if it is adjusted.

While leaning towards the latter conclusion, I also think that the consistency of foreign policies between Bush and Clinton can not be ignored, because their similar policies are not derived from the political tradition of the Party, but from the strength and status of the United States and its strategic interests.

Bush's foreign policy has three basic points: unilateralism, struggle and egoism. After Bush took office, the most prominent feature of his foreign policy was unilateralism, that is, when dealing with international affairs, he did not consult with important countries with interests or even his allies. For example, on the issue of anti-ballistic missile defense, the Bush administration's approach is to inform the countries concerned of its decision, without considering any objections. Therefore, its BMD policy is not only opposed by Russia, China and North Korea, but also criticized by Canada and some western European countries. South Korea, Australia and Britain all expressed their disapproval of BU's BMD policy. Even Japan, which supports the American theater anti-missile program (TMD), said that it could not participate in the NMD program of the American BMD because Bush merged the National Anti-missile Program (NMD) and TMD into BMD.

"Turn everyone into an enemy."

The bellicose feature of Bush's foreign policy is that he is always ready to use coercive means, including military means, against a country. The enemy's hunger drove the Bush administration to create enemies as soon as it took office. First, it launched a military strike against Iraq. Then he denied South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's sunshine policy towards North Korea and refused to discuss with North Korea how to improve bilateral relations. Then, taking the collision of Chinese and American military aircraft as an opportunity, he said that he would defend Taiwan Province Province by force and try to create a confrontation between China and the United States in Taiwan Province Province. Later, he despised the warning that Russia was equipped with multi-warhead strategic missiles to deal with the US BMD plan. US Secretary of State Powell sneered that the United States believes that Russia will not make such a decision that harms its own interests under the current economic situation. Some American public opinion commented that Bush's foreign policy is to turn everyone into his own enemy.

The egoism of Bush's foreign policy is to pursue national interests and ignore international interests. The fundamental purpose of foreign policy is to safeguard national interests, but all countries must maintain a certain balance between national interests and international interests. That is to say, if a country harms the collective interests of the world family too much when realizing its own interests, it will cause public anger, thus seriously undermining the relationship between the country and the international community and further harming its own national interests.

After taking office, Bush ignored this balance and did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, which aims at protecting the atmosphere. Stop asking the US Congress to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; Claiming that despite the opposition of the international community, the United States is preparing to withdraw from the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty"; After losing its seat on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the Bush administration publicly accused this international organization of being unfair.

The differences in foreign policy between Bush and Clinton mainly stem from the ideological differences between the two administrations. On the strategic goal of foreign policy, both Bush and Clinton want to maintain the leading position of the United States in the world for a long time, that is to say, in the language of the American government, to maintain the leading position of the United States in the world in the 2 1 century.

Bush is more concerned about security interests.

However, the two are different in how to maintain the hegemony of the United States in the world. First of all, in maintaining the military superiority of the United States, Clinton should not only widen the military strength gap with other countries in the world, but also consider necessary strategic security cooperation with allies and opponents. This is also the reason why Clinton increased military spending on the anti-missile system and conducted military exchanges with China and Russia. Bush, on the other hand, ignored the general opposition of the international community, focused on expanding the gap in military strength and strived to deploy BMD as soon as possible.

Secondly, in promoting American political values, Clinton crowned American values with internationalism, trying to take multilateral actions and participate in multilateral international treaties, even if he did not participate, he would not criticize universal international norms. Both Bush and Clinton insist on the principle that American domestic law is superior to international law, but Bush not only fails to abide by universal international norms, but also criticizes multilateral agreements that his government dislikes, such as accusing the Kyoto Protocol of being unrealistic and unfair, and accusing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of being unverifiable and unreliable.

In expanding the international economic interests of the United States, both Clinton and Bush stressed that safeguarding the economic interests of the United States is the main task of American foreign policy. However, Clinton paid more attention to economic interests and security interests and controlled the growth rate of military expenditure, while the Bush administration paid more attention to security interests and increased the growth rate of military expenditure. The Bush administration demanded that the defense expenditure be increased from $290 billion in Clinton's time to $310.5 billion, an increase of $20.5 billion, and at the same time, the special BMD expenditure was increased by more than $2 billion.

The international situation has not changed significantly during the Clinton period and after Bush took power, so the international strength status of the two governments is basically consistent with their objective strategic interests. This determines the similarity of their foreign policies, and the difference mainly stems from the ideological differences between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration.

The Clinton administration has a certain idealism, so it pays more attention to the role of international norms and maintains a certain balance between American national interests and international interests, while the Bush administration has a conservative nationalist ideology, so it adopts a conservative policy. Unilateralism, struggle and egoism reflect the ultra-nationalist policy of the Bush administration from different aspects. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security assistant, clearly stated in her article Promoting American National Interests: "It is true that there is nothing wrong with doing something beneficial to all mankind, but in a sense, it should be secondary ... Therefore, multilateral agreements and multilateral institutions should not be the ultimate goal."

Nationalist emotional policy

After the Cold War, the ideological opposition between socialism and capitalism gave way to various nationalist contradictions, so the traditional nationalist ideology prevailed in many countries. This traditional nationalism has many manifestations, such as separatism, xenophobia, racism, ethnocentrism, isolationism, trade protectionism, selfish unilateralism and some fundamentalism.

Bush's foreign policy is one of various traditional nationalism. The most typical example is that after the collision between Chinese and American military planes, the Bush administration adopted a very nationalist and emotional policy towards China. People with China passports are not allowed to enter government buildings, the White House is forbidden to receive tourists from China, and the Ministry of National Defense takes back berets made in China that have been issued to the troops.

The basic framework of the Bush administration's China policy will not change, but with the changes in its domestic and international situation, the Bush administration will adjust its China policy to a certain extent. According to bureaucratic theory (the actual policy after taking office is different from the policy promised during the election campaign), many analysts believe that Bush has begun to adjust his foreign policy and China policy.

The foreign policy of the Bush administration is mainly influenced by its strength, strategic interests and conservative nationalist ideology. Therefore, if these three elements do not change significantly, Bush's foreign policy will not change fundamentally. The main members of Bush's foreign policy are Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and National Security Assistant condoleezza rice, all of whom made foreign policies at the top of the last US administration. Therefore, it is not that Bush's foreign policy team has no experience in formulating foreign policy, but that their nationalist ideology is too conservative. At present, because Bush has not achieved the expected results in his foreign policy, it is possible to adjust his foreign policy tactically.

Powell's visit to China is positive and important for the development of Sino-US relations, but its role has certain limitations. Powell's visit to China has three positive meanings:

1. This visit has, to a certain extent, brought Sino-US relations out of the shadow of the plane collision incident in April, and officially ended the stage of unconditional toughness towards China after the new US administration took office.

2. Powell and the China administration reached an understanding of further dialogue on human rights, maritime issues and non-proliferation, which created the necessary political conditions for Bush 10' s official visit to China and provided a new foundation for further improvement of Sino-US relations.

3. Powell didn't use the word "strategic competitor" during his visit to China, which will help the official language of American China policy tend to be moderate, reduce rhetoric and increase the opposition between China and the United States.

The role of Powell's visit to China

In fact, since Powell informed China of his decision to visit, the importance and positive role of his trip is self-evident. However, the key to the problem is how important and positive it is.

Judging from the results of the visit, the evaluation of Powell's visit to China should be positive, but not too high. The issue of Taiwan Province Province is a key contradiction in Sino-US relations, and the two sides have not reached any consensus on this issue. Powell said that the Bush administration will abide by the one-China principle, which does not mean that the current US administration will no longer increase its arms exports to Taiwan Province, nor does it mean that the Bush administration will give up its policy of further developing military relations with Taiwan Province Province.

On the issue of arms control, Powell said that the anti-missile system of the United States is not aimed at China, but this does not mean that the United States agrees to maintain the existing pattern of strategic military forces, nor does it mean that China should have the most basic strategic deterrent force for a long time. Powell's position on these two points shows that the US government is not prepared to give up its strategic defense policy towards China.

Powell's verbal China policy is not equal to the Bush administration's actual China policy. The actual China policy of the Bush administration is the result of the balance of various opinions within the Bush administration. American Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other conservatives are very powerful, and Powell's China policy promised in China will be constrained by conservatives, so Bush is likely to seek a balance between the two opinions.

The Bush administration's actual China policy may not be as moderate as Powell said. Before Bush's visit to China, the U.S. policy toward China will be eased to a certain extent, which is conducive to the political atmosphere needed for his visit to China in June+10, 5438. However, shortly after his visit to China, the Bush administration may still decide to substantially increase its arms exports to Taiwan Province, so there is still the possibility of trouble in the relations between the two countries. This means that Powell's positive role in China has certain short-term characteristics and certain limitations. Therefore, from the perspective of long-term improvement of Sino-US relations, China and the United States need to make more efforts in a wider range of fields.

After the Bush administration took office, it adopted a dual-track policy towards China, that is, strengthening economic cooperation with China and guarding against China militarily. In the words of the Bush administration, China is a partner of the United States economically, but a potential competitor strategically.

As long as Bush does not change the strategic goal of maintaining the leading position of the United States in the world, and as long as the momentum of China's rise does not decrease, the framework of Bush's current China policy will not change. However, in order to safeguard the economic interests of the United States in China more effectively, the Bush administration does not want to affect the economic interests of the United States in China because of excessive military confrontation, so Bush's China policy will be adjusted to be relatively stable. However, this adjustment will be limited, and conservative nationalist ideology will make it difficult for Bush to return to Clinton's China policy.