Зовнішня політика США в світлі сирійського конфлікту (Foreign Policy of the USA in the Light of Syrian Conflict)

Худолій, А. О. (A. Khudoliy) (2014) Зовнішня політика США в світлі сирійського конфлікту (Foreign Policy of the USA in the Light of Syrian Conflict). Наукові праці ЧДУ імені Петра Могили, 228 (216). pp. 52-55.

PDF - Published Version Download (465kB)

Анотація

Статтю присвячено аналізу зовнішньополітичної діяльності президента Обами. Виявлено кореляцію політичних промов американського очільника з зовнішньою політикою Сполучених Штатів щодо Сирії. Розглянуто тенденцію змін офіційної позиції Білого дому з огляду на перебіг подій у Сирії.
(The article is devoted to analysis of president Obama foreign policy. Political speeches of the American leader and their correlation with American foreign policy regarding Syria are described. Tendency to the change of official position of the White House due to the course of events in Syria is analyzed. The main idea of B. Obama foreign policy is to renew American leadership. During the first period of presidency Obama positioned himself as a pacifist, but during the second facts indicate to the other way round. Expenses for the defense of the United States doubled in comparison with 2001 and now it is about 700 billion dollars. Peaceful statements made by Obama reflect imperatives of interventionism. There are serious doubts about the course change, because neither democrats whose interests the president defends, nor republicans allow him considerably change the vector of American foreign policy. Last events in Syria prove it. Due to the statements made by representatives of White House, the United States are ready to attack Syria. Obama is inclined to attack deliberately selected military objects
in Syria. The goal of the attack is not only to punish the Asad’s government, but also to take control of the use of chemical weapons against civilians. There are evident indicators of preparation to the assault on Syria. The United States moved four warships close to the shores of Syria. The issue of allies is also important in the Syrian context. Australia, France, Turkey and Israel are ready to support American attack against Syria. Position of the US is enthusiastically supported by France. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of France stated that the responsibility of Asad in the chemical attack is evident. Similar statement was made by the Prime-Minister of Australia. For decisive measures president Obama needs an approval of Congress. As a commander-in-chief, Obama doesn’t need any approval, but from his point of view the
discussion of this issue is important. There is no doubt that the president will get its approval. This result will correspond to the traditional course of the USA. Despite the intention of the American political elite to attack Syria, ordinary Americans keep another opinion. By the poll, conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News, about 60% of Americans are against the assault and only 36% are for it. White House administration applies similar approach in treating Syria to the one used by the former administration of G. Bush-junior. Today’s situation reminds similar one in Iraq before the war in March 2003. At that period of time high rank American officials said that Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When the war in Iraq started no kind of weapons was found. So, now Americans, as well as the rest of the world, are quite doubtful about the necessity of using force against Syria. To my mind it is interesting to follow the technique, used by the White House officials planning aggression against Syria. In August 2013 Obama’s administration just mentioned chemical weapon, used in Syria. A couple of days later it was mentioned that the government forces applied it though there was no evident facts. Unexpectedly on the 30th of August Washington high-rank officials started up the official information campaign, trying to persuade world community in posing danger from Bashar Asad side. The USA was making steps to form a coalition in waging war against Syria. On the same day White House officials stated a danger of Asada’s possession of chemical weapons not only for the people of Syria, but also for the whole world. It’s strange, because 189 countries in the world, including the USA and the RF, possess chemical weapons. Quite soon, on the 17th of September American President said that it was necessary to put B. Asad down as a dangerous leader for his own people and the democratic countries. American superiority is the ideological basis for foreign policy of the United States. And in this context Obama’s administration is similar to Bush’s administration. Statements, made by B. Obama, sound simultaneous with the statements made by European politicians. It makes sense, because it reduces critics from the world community and it doesn’t reduces the role of the United States as the world leader. Despite the talks between the USA and the Russian Federation, the State Secretary of the US John Kerry, on the eighth of October, stated that president Obama hasn’t made any decision regarding Syria. It means that the United States will decide on their own what to do and how react to the events in Syria. There are reasons to make conclusions that foreign policy of Barack Obama in the Middle East will increase instability in the region and strengthen American positions in order to get political and economic advantages. )

Тип файлу:	Стаття
Ключові слова:	зовнішня політика, інтервенціонізм, риторика, військове втручання, стратегії, США
Теми:	За напрямами > Політика > Зовнішня політика Навчальні матеріали та презентації
Підрозділи:	Навчально-науковий інститут лінгвістики > Кафедра лінгвістики та перекладу
Розмістив/ла:	професор Анатолій Худолій
Дата розміщення:	13 Тра 2024 11:32
Остання зміна:	13 Тра 2024 11:33
URI:	https://eprints.oa.edu.ua/id/eprint/9155

Actions (login required)

Переглянути елемент