The questions that remain in academia and the aim to conduct research on policymakers’ interests bring forth the following research question to better explain and understand U.S. foreign policy:...Show moreThe questions that remain in academia and the aim to conduct research on policymakers’ interests bring forth the following research question to better explain and understand U.S. foreign policy: Under the Obama administration, why did the U.S. not lead from behind in Egypt but did so in Libya and Syria, despite the similarities between the countries’ humanitarian crises and the U.S.’s broader interests in the Middle East? The research is structured as follows. The first chapter explores the extant literature and theories regarding U.S. military involvement. From this literature review, the subsequent chapter explains the factors that influence U.S. foreign policy and creates several models to steer the research at hand. After this, the research design addresses the data collection and analysis. This produces a tool upon which three chapters will be based that describe what led to the decision to lead from behind in Libya and Syria but not in Egypt. Following this, a comparative analysis is conducted to examine the differences in U.S. decision-making in regard to the three cases and is linked further to the academic literature. Upon this, several concluding remarks are provided, which pave the way for a discussion.Show less
The South China Sea became in a short time-span quickly heavy militarized. American and Chinese warships are increasingly active in these contested waters. While the G.W. Bush administration...Show moreThe South China Sea became in a short time-span quickly heavy militarized. American and Chinese warships are increasingly active in these contested waters. While the G.W. Bush administration focused militarily mostly on the Middle East, Obama re-shifted with the ‘pivot to Asia’ significant military attention to East Asia. This study aims to clarify to what extent Obama legitimized the military component in the pivot through securitization, as proposed by the Copenhagen School. Therefore, several American and Chinese policy documents and speeches are analyzed. The results indicate that, contrary to what the administration claimed, military policies were predominant in the pivot and ‘extraordinary measures’ compared to pre-existing policies. Furthermore, the Obama administration securitized Chinese policies regarding the South China Sea by portraying them as threatening U.S. security, and thus exceptional measures are required. In successfully securitizing the issue, the administration constructed a reality in which Beijing would have to respond, perceiving Washington uplifting the issue to a ‘top security issue’ as credible.Show less
In 2011, the new Obama administration made the official decision to rebalance America’s foreign policy. This policy has come to be known as the pivot or rebalance and signaled that the center of...Show moreIn 2011, the new Obama administration made the official decision to rebalance America’s foreign policy. This policy has come to be known as the pivot or rebalance and signaled that the center of the political and economic history of the 21st century is moving eastwards, with a re-newed focus towards the Asia-Pacific. With this shift Washington not only wants to benefit from the global geopolitical dynamics and economic growth, but it is also a result of China’s rising economic and military power. The South China Sea (SCS) is a place which is on the way to becoming the most contested body of water in the world with ongoing territorial disputes.Show less
