George W. Bushs decision to make his first overseas trip to Mexico, in mid-February, has generated a great deal of speculation about what this could possibly mean for changes in U.S. policy toward Latin America over the next four years.
For those who see George W. Bush as a dummy, the question is, who are his ventriloquists?
A Bush presidency portends a return to the blatantly anti-African policies of the Reagan-Bush years, characterized by a general disregard for black people and a perception of Africa as a social welfare case.
Bush and his East-European ties
The U.S. has a long history, spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations, of advocating openness and accountability at the IFIs.
There is little in the above record to suggest a major departure in Middle East policy when Bush takes office in January.
Foreign policy issues were mostly an afterthought during the 2000 presidential campaign, and they continue to take a back seat in President-elect George W. Bushs discussions of the priorities of his incoming administration.
An analysis of defense under Bush, in light of the new defense secretary nominee.
It is difficult to say what any new administrations policy will be by the end of the presidents term of office.
With the likelihood that Texas Governor George W. Bush will become the next president of the United States, there needs to be serious thought as to what kind of foreign policy can be expected over the next four years.
We should not accept, as fate, the feeling that, if our leaders do not lead, nothing can be done.
Smirked the Statesman of Calcutta, “Foreigners are watching with bemusement the spectacle of Americans tying themselves up in knots over election results.
As President Clinton goes to Vietnam this week, he carries with him a heavy weight of legacy from Americas longest war.
Contentious debates in Zimbabwe resonate across Southern Africa, reflecting the post-apartheid struggles for human rights, economic redistribution, and security.
The United States should certainly maintain its commitment to Israelâs legitimate security needs. What needs to be questioned is the Clinton administrationâs support for Israelâs ongoing occupation and its violations of basic human rights.