13
The approaches of Presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama were different, but these two presidents were also faced with radically different international
challenges. In the case of President Bush, soon after he assumed the Presidency the
US was subject to a history-changing terrorist intervention on the Twin Trade
Towers located in New York, with a simultaneous attack on the Pentagon and probably also a failed attack on the White House. He responded just as President
Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor—by declaring all-out war on the
attackers, a response which was supported by the entire civilized world. This war
was a very difficult one to pursue because the enemy was not a country which could
be defeated and occupied (as in World War II), but an amorphous and international
terrorist group. The war took the US into commitments in distant Central Asia and
never reached a clear result before the Presidency was taken over by Barrack Obama
(Author’s interview with Ambassador John Marsca 2016).
Obama was faced with an equally difficult—but radically different challenge: to
extract the US from a long war which had reached no clear result. The difficulty of
such an honorable withdrawal is shown by the fact that at the end of two presidential
terms the US is still trying to extract itself from Afghanistan, and the situation in
Iraq is still very unstable, with a new terrorist threat still posed by ISIS. Most experts
agree that the complex terrorist threat which began with the attacks on the Twin
Trade Towers will continue for some years and that there will be no easy solution.
The same threat is now very strongly felt in Europe and elsewhere. Both Presidents
managed relations with Russia carefully, as that country over the same period
showed a renewed nationalist tendency, with equally expansive sovereign interests.
This challenge—which is also related to the central challenge of international terrorism—is one of both cooperating with Russia and seeking to ensure that its international behavior is acceptable throughout the region which is of legitimate interest
to Russia, including “Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East” (Author’s
interview with Ambassador John Marsca 2016). Ed Chaw (Author’s interview with
Ed Chaw 2016) argues that given the expected shock of the disintegration of the
former USSR, the initial focus was for newly emerging post-Soviet states to get
economic autonomy from Russia as a means of realignment.
in order to sustain the political independent sovereignty of these countries you need to give
them economic autonomy, … but they should not increase economic dependency on Russia,
what do you have to use for that what is you instrument, in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan they
have oil, so Western firms invest in their oil sector, our firms invested and they became able
to expand relations without Russian influence, to support them economic and financially. It
also happened to match the vision of local leader such as Nazarbayev and Haydar Aliyev.
So they was kind of a mutual benefit. Both they host countries as well US, Foreign policy
desire to independent of these countries, energy was the one on instrument they can be used
part of that which use to reach such goals. US Foreign policy interest overlapped with
American companies’ commercial interests at the same time… Chevron in Kazakhstan, BP
invest in Azerbaijan… the important thing was to give them an alternative relationship away
from Russia.
Foreign Policy and Energy Resources
The approaches of Presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama were different, but these two presidents were also faced with radically different international
challenges. In the case of President Bush, soon after he assumed the Presidency the
US was subject to a history-changing terrorist intervention on the Twin Trade
Towers located in New York, with a simultaneous attack on the Pentagon and probably also a failed attack on the White House. He responded just as President
Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor—by declaring all-out war on the
attackers, a response which was supported by the entire civilized world. This war
was a very difficult one to pursue because the enemy was not a country which could
be defeated and occupied (as in World War II), but an amorphous and international
terrorist group. The war took the US into commitments in distant Central Asia and
never reached a clear result before the Presidency was taken over by Barrack Obama
(Author’s interview with Ambassador John Marsca 2016).
Obama was faced with an equally difficult—but radically different challenge: to
extract the US from a long war which had reached no clear result. The difficulty of
such an honorable withdrawal is shown by the fact that at the end of two presidential
terms the US is still trying to extract itself from Afghanistan, and the situation in
Iraq is still very unstable, with a new terrorist threat still posed by ISIS. Most experts
agree that the complex terrorist threat which began with the attacks on the Twin
Trade Towers will continue for some years and that there will be no easy solution.
The same threat is now very strongly felt in Europe and elsewhere. Both Presidents
managed relations with Russia carefully, as that country over the same period
showed a renewed nationalist tendency, with equally expansive sovereign interests.
This challenge—which is also related to the central challenge of international terrorism—is one of both cooperating with Russia and seeking to ensure that its international behavior is acceptable throughout the region which is of legitimate interest
to Russia, including “Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East” (Author’s
interview with Ambassador John Marsca 2016). Ed Chaw (Author’s interview with
Ed Chaw 2016) argues that given the expected shock of the disintegration of the
former USSR, the initial focus was for newly emerging post-Soviet states to get
economic autonomy from Russia as a means of realignment.
in order to sustain the political independent sovereignty of these countries you need to give
them economic autonomy, … but they should not increase economic dependency on Russia,
what do you have to use for that what is you instrument, in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan they
have oil, so Western firms invest in their oil sector, our firms invested and they became able
to expand relations without Russian influence, to support them economic and financially. It
also happened to match the vision of local leader such as Nazarbayev and Haydar Aliyev.
So they was kind of a mutual benefit. Both they host countries as well US, Foreign policy
desire to independent of these countries, energy was the one on instrument they can be used
part of that which use to reach such goals. US Foreign policy interest overlapped with
American companies’ commercial interests at the same time… Chevron in Kazakhstan, BP
invest in Azerbaijan… the important thing was to give them an alternative relationship away
from Russia.
Foreign Policy and Energy Resources