Misplaced Pages

Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:20, 30 June 2005 edit216.174.193.47 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:07, 10 December 2024 edit undoInternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers5,380,770 edits Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 1 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (Pancho507 - 22007 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Overview of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration}}
During his campaign, ]'s foreign policy platform included support for a stronger economic and political relationship with Latin America, especially Mexico, and a reduction of involvement in "]" and other small-scale military engagements.
{{Main|Presidency of George W. Bush}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2022}}
{{George W. Bush series}}


The main event by far shaping the ] during the ] (2001–2009) was the ] against the United States on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent ]. There was massive domestic and international support for destroying the attackers. With UN approval, US and NATO forces quickly invaded the attackers' base in Afghanistan and drove them out and the Taliban government that harbored them. It was the start of a 20-year quagmire that finally ended in failure with the ].
Bush's decision to impose a ], and to withdraw from global initiatives such as the ], the ], and an international ] treaty, has been argued as evidence that he and his administration have a policy of acting unilaterally in international affairs.


Other interactions with foreign nations during this period included diplomatic and military initiatives in the ], ], and elsewhere. Important economic developments that occurred during Bush's presidency include the several ].
On ], 2001, Bush withdrew the United States from the ] ], a bedrock of U.S.-] nuclear stability during the ]-era. Bush stated, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks." This decision encountered wide skepticism in Europe and Asia, where it prompted fears of another costly arms race. The ] project Bush supports is supposed to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles and to destroy them in flight. Critics doubt that the project could ever work and point out that it will cost US$53 billion from 2004 to 2009, being the largest single line item in ]'s balance.


The chief advisors of the president were ] ] and ], ] ], and ] ].
The Bush presidency has also been marked by diplomatic tensions with the ] and ], the latter of which admitted in ] to having been in the process of building ]s and threatened to use them if provoked by the U.S.
The administration is concerned that Iran is also developing nuclear weapons.


==Appointments==
During his first presidential visit to Europe in June 2001, Bush came under criticism from European leaders for his rejection of the Kyoto treaty, which is aimed at reducing ] emissions that contribute to ]. He has asserted, for example, that the Kyoto Protocol is "unfair and ineffective" because it would exempt 80 percent of the world and "cause serious harm to the U.S. economy".
{{multiple image
| header = Bush's 2001 foreign policy team
| footer =
| footer_align = center
| align = left
| caption_align = center


| image1 = 46 Dick Cheney 3x4.jpg
Many governments have criticized the failure of the United States to ratify the Kyoto protocol, which was signed by the previous administration. Former President ] recommended that his successor (Mr. Bush) ''not'' submit the treaty for ratification until the wording was altered to reflect U.S. concerns. Bush, who is opposed to the treaty, rescinded U.S. executive approval from the proposed treaty. It is doubtful that the treaty would become law in the U.S. if it were submitted to the ] for ratification as similar to the Bryd-Hagel Resolution. In 1997, proir to Kyoto Protocol negotiations, the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed in Senate by a 95-0 vote. The resolution stated that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized ones or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Regardless, Bush is a firm opponent of the treaty.
| width1 = 96
| alt1 = Dick Cheney
| caption1 = ''']'''
| link1 = Dick Cheney


| image2 = George Tenet portrait headshot.jpg
| width2 = 102
| alt2 = George Tenet
| caption2 = ''']'''
| link2 = George Tenet


| image3 = Condoleezza Rice cropped.jpg
In July of ], Bush cut off all funding, approximately $34 million, for the ] (UNFPA). This funding had been allocated by Congress the previous December. Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced ]s and ]s in ]. His justification came from a bipartisan group of anti-abortion members of Congress and an anti-abortion organization called ], which claimed to have obtained first-hand video taped evidence from victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization in counties where the UNFPA operates in China. The decision was praised by many in the anti-abortion movement, including the conservative Christian women's organization ]. No funds were restored to the UNFPA in 2003 or 2004, which is already forbidden from performing or referring to abortion services under its charter and the ].
| width3 = 97
| alt3 = Condoleezza Rice
| caption3 = ''']'''
| link3 = Condoleezza Rice


| image4 = Colin Powell official Secretary of State photo.jpg
Many other women's rights groups criticized the decision and point out that the PRI refused to release information that would allow the team to locate the women, and thus no independent verification of PRI's claims was possible. Nor was it possible to confirm that UNFPA funding was actually behind the abortion and forced sterilizations alleged in the video. However, upon investigations in China, reports state that UNFPA funding is not allocated towards abortions or forced sterilizations. See for more information on the PRI.
| width4 = 101
| alt4 = Colin Powell
| caption4 = ''']'''
| link4 = Colin Powell


| image5 = Rumsfeld1.jpg
Bush's foreign policy is influenced by the ] ] ]. Many members hold prominent positions in the Bush administration, including founding members ] ] and ] ]. The project's goal is to promote "American global leadership". Critics allege that its policies are ] and excessively ].
| width5 = 101
| alt5 = Donald Rumsfeld
| caption5 = ''']'''
| link5 = Donald Rumsfeld
}}


{|class=wikitable style="text-align:center"
|-
!colspan="9"|George W. Bush administration foreign policy personnel
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] ||colspan="8"|]<br /><small>(2001–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] ||colspan="4"|]<br /><small>(2001–2005)</small> ||colspan="4"|]<br /><small>(2005–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] ||colspan="6"|]<br /><small>(2001–2006)</small> ||colspan="2"|]<br /><small>(2006–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|]||'']''<br /><small>(2001)</small> ||colspan="2"|]<br /><small>(2001–2004)</small> ||]<br /><small>(2004–2005)</small> ||'']''<br /><small>(2005)</small> ||]<br /><small>(2005–2006)</small> ||'']''<br /><small>(2006–2007)</small> ||]<br /><small>(2007–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] ||colspan="3"|]<br /><small>(2001–2004)</small> ||'']''<br /><small>(2004)</small> || ]<br /><small>(2004–2005)</small> ||colspan="3"|''Discontinued''<br /><small>(2005–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] || colspan="5"|''Not yet created''<br /><small>(2001–2005)</small> || colspan="2"|]<br /><small>(2005–2007)</small> || colspan="1"|]<br /><small>(2007–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] || colspan="5"|''Not yet created''<br /><small>(2001–2005)</small> || ]<br /><small>(2005–2006)</small> || colspan="2"|]<br /><small>(2006–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] ||colspan="4"|]<br /><small>(2001–2005)</small> ||colspan="4"|]<br /><small>(2005–2009)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] ||colspan="5"|]<br /><small>(2001–2005)</small> ||colspan="2"|]<br /><small>(2005–2007)</small> ||]<br /><small>(2007–2008)</small>
|-
| style="width:225pt; text-align:left;"|] ||colspan="5"|]<br /><small>(2001–2005)</small> ||'']''<br /><small>(2005)</small> ||]<br /><small>(2005–2006)</small> ||colspan="1"|]<br /><small>(2006–2009)</small>
|}

==Approaching foreign policy==
] had little experience or interest in foreign policy prior to the presidency and his decisions were guided by his advisers. In a gaffe in 2000, for example, Bush confused Afghanistan's ruling ] with a musical ].<ref>{{cite book|author-link=Steve Coll|last=Coll|first=Steve|title=]|publisher=]|year=2004|isbn=9781594200076|pages=543–544}}</ref> Bush embraced the views of Cheney and other ], who de-emphasized the importance of ]; neoconservatives believed that because the United States was the world's lone ], it could act unilaterally if necessary.<ref name="smith181182">Smith (2016), pp. 181–182, 193.</ref> At the same time, Bush sought to enact the less ] foreign policy he had promised during the 2000 campaign.<ref>Draper (2007), pp. 128–130.</ref> Also during the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush's ] platform included support for stronger economic and political relationship with ], especially ], and a reduction of involvement in "]" and other small-scale military engagements.<ref name=autogenerated3>{{cite news |url=https://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/010501bush.html |title=President Bush Speech on Missile Defense |publisher=] |date=May 1, 2001 |access-date=September 1, 2008 |archive-date=March 13, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080313022704/http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/010501bush.html |url-status=dead}}</ref>
Oliver argues that Bush was quickly influenced by ideologues who argued for unilateral action to establish US primacy in world affairs. They included Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor ], – with Secretary of State Colin Powell as a non-ideological centrist.<ref>James Oliver, "Pragmatic Fathers and Ideological Suns: Foreign Policy in the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W Bush". ''White House Studies'' 7#3 (2007): 199–213.</ref><ref>Roberta Haar, "Explaining George W. Bush's adoption of the neoconservative agenda after 9/11". ''Politics & Policy'' 38.5 (2010): 965–990.</ref>

===September 11 attacks===
{{Main|September 11 attacks}}
], September 11, 2001]]
], addressing rescue workers at ] in New York, September 14, 2001]]

On ], two hijacked planes destroyed the ] in New York City, a third plane hit the ] and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after being averted by passengers from its target. These attacks were carried out by the ] terrorist organization led by mastermind ]<ref name="Moghadam">{{cite book|title=The Globalization of Martyrdom: Al Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the Diffusion of Suicide Attacks|last=Moghadam|first=Assaf|publisher=Johns Hopkins University|year=2008|isbn=978-0-8018-9055-0|page=48}}</ref><ref name="SalafistJidadism">{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/sala.html|title=Special Reports{{nbsp}}– The Salafist Movement: Al Qaeda's New Front|last=Livesey|first=Bruce|date=January 25, 2005|website=PBS Frontline|publisher=WGBH educational foundation|access-date=October 18, 2011}}{{cite book|title=US Counter-Terrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda: Signalling and the Terrorist World-View|last1=Geltzer|first1=Joshua A.|date=2011|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0415664523|edition=Reprint|page=83}}</ref>{{sfnp|Wright|2006|p=79}}

On September 14, 2001, Congress passed legislation titled ], which was signed on September 18, 2001, by President Bush. It authorized the use of US Armed Forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those who harbored them.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text|title=S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force|publisher=www.govtrack.us|access-date=May 18, 2020}}</ref>

The September 11 terrorist attacks were a major turning point in Bush's presidency. That evening, he addressed the nation from the ], promising a strong response to the attacks. He also emphasized the need for the nation to come together and comfort the families of the victims. Three days after the attacks, Bush visited ] and met with Mayor ], firefighters, police officers, and volunteers. To much applause, Bush addressed the gathering via a megaphone while standing in a heap of rubble: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-9.html |date=September 14, 2001 |title=President Bush Salutes Heroes in New York |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-9.html |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |access-date=June 23, 2009 |via=] |work=] |url-status=dead}}</ref>

] and declares "Freedom at War with Fear", September 20, 2001]]

In his ] on September 20, 2001, President Bush condemned ] and his organization ], and issued an ultimatum to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where bin Laden was operating, to "hand over the terrorists, or{{nbsp}}... share in their fate".<ref name="auto6">{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html |date=September 20, 2001 |title=Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People |access-date=June 23, 2009 |archive-date=May 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090527194111/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html |via=] |work=] |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Writing about changes to the ] in the wake of the September 11 attacks in a 2020 article in '']'' magazine, former Deputy Secretary of State ] and former Assistant Secretary of State ] said, "Although the transformation of the State Department into a more expeditionary and agile institution was healthy in many respects, it was also distorting. It was tethered to a fundamentally flawed strategy—one that was too narrowly focused on terrorism and too wrapped up in magical thinking about the United States' supposed power to transform regions and societies."<ref name="ForeignAffairs20200923">{{cite magazine|last1=Burns|first1=William J.|author-link=William J. Burns (diplomat)|last2=Thomas-Greenfield|first2=Linda|author-link2=Linda Thomas-Greenfield|date=September 23, 2020|title=The Transformation of Diplomacy: How to Save the State Department|volume=99|number=6|magazine=]|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-09-23/diplomacy-transformation|issn=0015-7120|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

===Bush Doctrine===
{{Main|Bush Doctrine}}

After the September 11 attacks, Bush's approval ratings increased tremendously. Bush decided to use his newfound political capital to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy. He became increasingly focused on the possibility of a hostile country providing ] (WMDs) to terrorist organizations.<ref>Draper (2007), pp. 166–169</ref> During his ] in January 2002, Bush set forth what has become known as the ], which held that the United States would implement a policy of ] against nations known to be harboring or aiding a terrorist organization hostile to the United States.<ref>Smith (2016), pp. 277–278</ref> Bush outlined what he called the "]", consisting of three nations that, he argued, posed the greatest threat to world peace due to their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and potential to aid terrorists. The axis consisted of ], ] and ].<ref>Herring (2008), pp. 943–944</ref> Bush also began emphasizing the importance of spreading democracy worldwide, stating in 2005 that "the survival of liberty in our land depends on the success of liberty in other land." Pursuant to this newly-interventionist policy, the Bush administration boosted foreign aid and increased defense expenditures.<ref>Leffler (2011), pp. 34–35</ref> Defense spending rose from $304 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $616 billion in fiscal year 2008.<ref>Leffler (2011), pp. 37–38</ref>

===National missile defense===
On December 13, 2001, President Bush announced the withdrawal of the United States from the 1972 ], a bedrock of ] during the ] era. Bush stated, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks." According to the announcement, the withdrawal was to become effective six months from that date.<ref>{{cite web|title=ABM Treaty Fact Sheet: Statement by the Press Secretary: Announcement of Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011213-2.html|publisher=White House, Office of the Press Secretary|access-date=July 15, 2013}}</ref> The Bush administration pursued a national missile defense.<ref name=autogenerated3 /> The ] project that Clinton introduced and Bush supported was designed to detect ]s and destroy them in flight. Critics doubted that the project could ever work and said that it would<!-- did it? --> cost US$53 billion from 2004 to 2009, being the largest single line item in ]'s funding.<ref>Stephen L. Quackenbush, "National missile defense and deterrence". ''Political Research Quarterly'' 59.4 (2006): 533–541. </ref>

==Other issues==

===Environmental issues===
In terms of international environmental policy, Daynes, and Sussman argues the son was less committed than the father, and neither was as successful as Bill Clinton.<ref>Byron W. Daynes, and Glen Sussman. "Comparing the Environmental Policies of Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush". ''White House Studies'' 7#3 (2007): 167+.</ref> Many governments have criticized the failure of the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed but not submitted for Senate ratification by the previous administration. Former President ] recommended that his successor not submit the treaty for ratification until the wording was altered to reflect U.S. concerns. Bush, who was opposed to the treaty, rescinded U.S. executive approval from the proposed treaty. In 1997, prior to the Kyoto negotiations, the ] passed in the U.S. Senate by a 95–0 vote. The resolution stated that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized ones, or that seriously harm the American economy. Byron W. Daynes, and Glen Sussman conclude that Bush's policy had a "negative impact on the environment".<ref>Byron W. Daynes, and Glen Sussman, ''White House Politics and the Environment: Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush'' (Texas A&M UP, 2010) pp 189–209.</ref>

===International Criminal Court===
]

The ] (ICC) came into being on July 1, 2002. The ICC is the first ever permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

Later that year, in August 2002, the ] (ASPA) was passed by Congress with the stated intention "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not a party."

==International trips==
{{Further|List of international presidential trips made by George W. Bush}}
]
The number of visits per country where he traveled are:

* One visit to ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and the ]
* Two visits to ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]
* Three visits to ], ], and ]
* Four visits to ], ], ], ], and ]
* Five visits to ], the ], and ]
* Six visits to ] and ]
* Seven visits to ]

==International trade==
President Bush supported free trade policies and legislation but resorted to ] policies on occasion. ] imposed by the White House in March 2002 were lifted after the ] (WTO) ruled them illegal. Bush explained that the safeguard measures had "achieved their purpose", and "as a result of changed economic circumstances", it was time to lift them.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/05/bush_lifts_steel_import_tariffs/ |title=Bush lifts steel import tariffs: Industry angry; trade war averted |date=December 5, 2003 |author=Wayne Washington |work=The Boston Globe |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref> Bush used the authority he gained from the ] to push through bilateral trade agreements with several countries. Bush also sought to expand multilateral trade agreements through the WTO, but negotiations were stalled in the ] for most of Bush's presidency. On August 31, 2004, WTO arbitrators authorized the ] and other leading U.S. trade partners to impose ] against the United States for violation of global trade laws. The decision by the WTO was one of several cases where the U.S. was found to have been in breach of international trade rules.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/01/business/worldbusiness/01trade.html |title=U.S. Loses Trade Cases and Faces Penalties |date=September 1, 2004 |author=Paul Meller, Elizabeth Becker |work=] |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>

However, Bush pursued and signed ] agreements with several countries, including ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], Ukraine, and with six countries under the ].

==Defense==

===Weapons of mass destruction===
The Bush administration released its "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" in December 2002. The strategy includes three key elements: counterproliferation to combat the use of ] (WMD), strengthened nonproliferation to combat WMD proliferation, and consequence management to respond to WMD use. The classified version of this strategy reportedly reserved the right to use overwhelming force, including potentially ]s, in response to a WMD attack against the United States, its forces or allies.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-17.html |title=National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction |date=September 17, 2002 |author=President Bush |publisher=National Security Presidential Directives |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>

In February 2004, in the context of recent revelations about clandestine nuclear programs in Iran and Libya, and the role of the ] network in proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology, Bush proposed seven initiatives:<ref>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040211-4.html |title=President Announces New Measures to Counter the Threat of WMD |date=February 11, 2004 |author=President Bush |publisher=Office of the Press Secretary |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>
# Cooperation on law enforcement for interdiction of WMD trade, known as the ];
# Passage of a UN Security Council Resolution requiring states to enact WMD-related controls, which led to ];
# Expansion of the G8 Global Partnership to eliminate WMD and secure WMD materials worldwide;
# Reliable access to nuclear fuel, accompanied by a ban on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology to countries that do not already have such facilities;
# Making the ] (IAEA) ] a condition for nuclear supply, and ratification of the U.S. Additional Protocol;
# Establishing a Special Committee of the IAEA Board of Governors on safeguards and verification to strengthen compliance and enforcement; and
# Excluding countries under investigation for nonproliferation violations from serving on the Board or the Special Committee.

===Defense spending===
Of the US$2.4 trillion budgeted for 2005, about $450 billion was planned to be spent on defense.<!-- what actually happened? --> This level was generally comparable<!-- in what respect? --> to the defense spending during the ]. Congress approved $87 billion for U.S. involvement in ] and ] in November, and had approved an earlier $79 billion package the previous spring. Most of the funds were for military operations in the two countries.

The ratio of defense spending of the U.S. and its allies to its potential adversaries, for the year 2000, was about 6 to 1.

==International organizations==
In July 2002, Bush cut off all funding, approximately $34 million, for the ] (UNFPA). This funding had been allocated by Congress the previous December. Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced ]s and ] in China. His justification came from a group of members of Congress who oppose abortion and an anti-abortion organization called the ], which claimed{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}} to have obtained first-hand video taped evidence from victims of ] and ] in counties where the UNFPA operates in China. This accusation has never been supported by any investigation, and has in fact been disproved{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}} by the US State Department, UK, and ] teams sent to examine UNFPA activities in China. The UNFPA points out that it "does not provide support for abortion services". Its charter includes a strong statement condemning coercion."{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}}

The Bush administration opposed the creation of the ] to protest the repressive states among its membership.<ref name="Lynch">{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104115.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | title=U.S. to Seek Seat on U.N. Human Rights Council | first=Colum | last=Lynch | date=1 April 2009 | access-date=26 May 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?193556-1/un-ambassador-nomination-hearing| title=U.N. Ambassador Re-Nomination Hearing |website=C-SPAN |date=27 July 2006}}</ref>

===UN peacekeeping===
{{Further|United Nations peacekeeping}}

In the United States, the Clinton and Bush administrations started from opposite perspectives but came to adopt remarkably similar policies in support of peace operations as tools for American foreign policy. Initial positions formed by ideological concerns, were replaced by pragmatic decisions about how to support UN peace operations. Both administrations were reluctant to contribute large contingents of ground troops to UN-commanded operations, even as both administrations supported increases in the number and scale of UN missions.<ref>Victoria K. Holt, and Michael G. Mackinnon. "The origins and evolution of US policy towards peace operations". ''International Peacekeeping'' 15.1 (2008): 18-34 .</ref>

The Clinton administration faced significant operational challenges. Instead of a liability, this was the tactical price of strategic success. American peace operations help transform its NATO alliance. The Bush administration started with a negative ideological attitude toward peace operations. However European and Latin American governments emphasized peace operations as strategically positive, especially regarding the use of European forces in Afghanistan and Lebanon. However American allies sometimes needed to flout their autonomy, even to the point of sacrificing operational efficiency, much to the annoyance of Washington.<ref>Richard Gowan, "The United States and Peacekeeping Policy in Europe and Latin America: An Uncertain Catalyst?." ''International Peacekeeping'' 15.1 (2008): 84-101.</ref><ref>Erika N. Cornelius, and Ryan C. Hendrickson, "George W. Bush, War Powers and UN Peacekeeping in Haiti." ''White House Studies'' 8.1 (2008): 57+.</ref>

==Foreign aid==
On July 21, 2004, in a statement on the fiftieth anniversary of the ] program, Bush hailed the United States for feeding the hungry. Noting that "Millions are facing great affliction", he stated that "America has a special calling to come to their aid."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/50th/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20121214082316/http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/50th/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 14, 2012 |title=USAID – 50 Years of Food For Peace: Bringing Hope to the Hungry |date=July 13, 2004 |publisher=USAID |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref> After the 2004 election, however, the Bush administration told several private charities that it would not be honoring previous funding commitments. The shortfall, estimated at $100 million, forced the charities to suspend or eliminate programs that had already been approved to improve farming, education and health in order to promote self-sufficiency in poor countries.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/U-S-slashes-aid-to-food-programs-Charities-2628201.php |title=U.S. slashes aid to food programs / Charities estimate $100 million in cuts |date=December 22, 2004 |author=Elizabeth Becker |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>

While the United States continued to give large amounts of aid abroad, the Bush presidency was criticized for having a major impact upon the ] project of the ]. Many nations, including key ] members, were criticized for falling far short of their promise to give 0.7% of their GDP in order to drastically reduce poverty by the target date of 2015.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/endorse_TI_19Jan05.pdf |title=Poverty can be halved if efforts are coupled with better governance, says TI |date=January 19, 2005 |publisher=Transparency International |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>

In his ] in January 2003, Bush outlined a five-year strategy for global emergency ] relief, the ]. The emergency relief effort was led by U.S. Ambassador ], former ] of ] and ] at the ]. At the time of the speech, $9 billion was earmarked for new programs in AIDS relief for the 15 countries most affected by HIV/AIDS, another $5 billion for continuing support of AIDS relief in 100 countries where the U.S. already had bilateral programs established, and an additional $1 billion towards the ].<ref>{{cite news|agency=Associated Press|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/29/quarter-of-bushs-15-bil_n_14689.html|title=Quarter Of Bush's $15 Billion For AIDS Going To Christian Groups|work=]|date=January 29, 2006|access-date=June 30, 2006}}</ref> This budget represented more money contributed to fight AIDS globally than all other donor countries combined.

As the largest national economy in the world, the United States' leadership and commitment was seen as vital in addressing world poverty and ensuring implementation of the project, considered the most progressive and feasible to date for the United Nations or any other institution.

President Bush signed a multimillion-dollar aid deal with the government of ] on February 17, 2008.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/17/bush.africa/index.html|title=Bush signs aid deal with Tanzania|work=]|date=February 17, 2008|access-date=February 17, 2006}}</ref> Bush, cheering Liberians to rebound from ] that left their nation in ruins, said February 21, 2008, that the United States will keep lending a hand to make ] a symbol of liberty for Africa and the world.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/02/21/bush.liberia.ap/index.html|title=Bush vows to help war-crippled Liberia rebound|work=]|date=February 21, 2008|access-date=February 22, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225210415/http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/02/21/bush.liberia.ap/index.html|archive-date=February 25, 2008}}</ref> President Bush ordered the release of $200 million in emergency aid to help countries in Africa and elsewhere. Riots from ] to ] to ] over ] catapulted the issue to the forefront of the world's attention.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/whitehouse.food.crisis/index.html|title=U.S. to give $200M in food aid|work=]|date=April 15, 2008|access-date=April 15, 2008}}</ref>

==Criticisms and defenses==
The Bush policies in the Middle East, especially Iraq, have come under intense criticism although there are some supporters as well. Bush supporters point to a range of more successful policies elsewhere in the world, as summarized by ] and Peter Feaver:

{{Blockquote|<blockquote>The administration successfully negotiated the Moscow Treaty, which codified mutually agreed upon deep cuts in the strategic arsenals. With respect to India, determined and creative engagement fostered a diplomatic breakthrough that brought New Delhi out of the 'nuclear ghetto' and fostered increased strategic cooperation with one of the world's most important rising powers. Regarding China, the Bush administration{{nbsp}}... generally stable relations with a rising Beijing. The administration also maintained positive ties with Japan, continuing the post-Cold War process of encouraging that country to broaden its defense and strategic horizons. And across the Asia-Pacific, the Bush administration continued to modernize US alliances and partnerships.{{nbsp}}... The administration also established fairly productive relations with a rising Brazil in Latin America.{{nbsp}}... continued and expanded Plan Colombia, an aggressive counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency assistance plan that helped{{nbsp}}... to reverse the trajectory of the Colombian civil war and make Bogota a key strategic partner in the region.{{nbsp}}... In Africa, the administration's record was perhaps most transformative of all.{{nbsp}}... Bush dramatically increased both the quantity and quality of foreign aid, doubling the aid budget and pushing forward important new reforms.<ref>Hal Brands, and Peter Feaver, "The case for Bush revisionism: Reevaluating the legacy of America's 43rd president". ''Journal of Strategic Studies'' 41.1-2 (2018): 234-274 .</ref> </blockquote>}}

==Americas==

===Canada===
{{Main|Canada–United States relations}}
{{Main|Canada in the War in Afghanistan|Canada and the Iraq War}}
], September 2002]]
], July 2006]]

Canada's elite ] unit joined American special forces in the ] shortly after the ]. Canadian forces joined the multinational coalition in ] in January 2002. On April 18, 2002, an American pilot ], killing four and wounding eight Canadians. A joint American-Canadian inquiry determined the cause of the incident to be pilot error, in which the pilot interpreted ground fire as an attack; the pilot ignored orders that he felt were "second-guessing" his field tactical decision.<ref name="friendly fire cbc">{{cite news|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-friendly-fire-pilot-won-t-face-court-martial-1.479996|title=U.S. 'friendly fire' pilot won't face court martial|publisher=CBC News|date=July 6, 2004|access-date=January 28, 2004}}</ref><ref name="friendly fire bbc">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2073024.stm|title=Pilots blamed for 'friendly fire' deaths|work=BBC News|date=August 22, 2002|access-date=January 28, 2007}}</ref> Canadian forces assumed a six-month command rotation of the ] in 2003; in 2005, Canadians assumed operational command of the multi-national Brigade in ], with 2,300 troops, and supervises the ] in Kandahar, where al-Qaida forces are most active.

Relations between President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister ] were strained throughout their overlapping times in office. After the ] terror attacks, Jean Chrétien publicly mused that U.S. foreign policy might be part of the "root causes" of terrorism. Some Americans criticized his "smug moralism", and Chrétien's public refusal to support the 2003 Iraq war was met with negative responses in the United States, especially among conservatives.<ref>{{cite book|first=Daniel|last=Drache|title=Big Picture Realities: Canada and Mexico at the Crossroads|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hKfvb5zf8oUC&pg=PA115|year=2008|publisher=Wilfrid Laurier U.P.|page=115|access-date=November 6, 2015|isbn=9781554582334}}</ref>

Prime Minister Chrétien said on October 10, 2002, that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in Parliament on June 18, 2003, that Canada would ''not'' participate in the pending invasion. Nevertheless, he offered the US and its soldiers his moral support. However, according to classified U.S. documents released by ], a high-ranking Canadian official may have secretly promised to clandestinely support the invasion.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weston-canada-offered-to-aid-iraq-invasion-wikileaks-1.1062501 |author=Greg Weston |title=Canada offered to aid Iraq invasion: WikiLeaks |publisher=CBC News |date=May 16, 2011}}</ref>

President Bush and newly elected Canadian Prime Minister ] were thought to share warm personal relations and also close ties between their administrations. Because Bush was so unpopular among liberals in Canada (particularly in the media), this was underplayed by the Harper government.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prime-ministers-and-presidents-1.848083 | work=CBC News | title=Prime ministers and presidents | date=February 18, 2009}}</ref>

Shortly after being congratulated by President Bush following his ], Harper rebuked U.S. ambassador to Canada ] for criticizing the ] plans to assert Canada's sovereignty over the ] waters with military force.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/guest-column-time-canada-to-negotiate-the-northwest-passage-1.1047758|title=Guest column: Time, Canada, to negotiate the Northwest Passage|work=CBC News|access-date=July 18, 2017|language=en}}</ref>

===Central American Free Trade Agreement===
{{Main|Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement}}
]

The ] approved the CAFTA-DR on June 30, 2005, by a vote of 54–45,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00170|title=U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress – 1st Session|website=www.senate.gov}}</ref> and the ] approved the pact on July 28, 2005, by a vote of 217–215, with two representatives not voting.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml|title=27 July 2005 House Roll Call Vote on Passage of H.R. 3045}}</ref> Controversy arose over this vote because it was held open 1 hour and 45 minutes longer than the normal 15 minutes in order to get some members to change their votes.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kumar |first=Anita |date=July 28, 2005 |url=http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/28/Worldandnation/With_push_from_Bush__.shtml |title=With push from Bush, CAFTA is approved |newspaper=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060526001031/http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/28/Worldandnation/With_push_from_Bush__.shtml |archive-date=May 26, 2006}}</ref> For procedural reasons, the Senate took a second vote on CAFTA on July 28 and the pact garnered an additional vote from Sen. ]—who had been absent on June 30—in favor of the agreement.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00209|title=U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress – 1st Session|website=www.senate.gov}}</ref> The implementing legislation became ] 109-053 when it was signed by Bush on August 2, 2005.

The Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras have also approved the agreement. They are all the current members of CAFTA-DR.

El Salvador became the first country to formally implement CAFTA, which went into effect on March 1, 2006, when the ] (OAS) received signed copies of the treaty. On April 1, 2006, Honduras and Nicaragua fully implemented the agreement. On May 18, 2006, the ] ratified CAFTA-DR, which went into effect on July 1, 2006. The Dominican Republic implemented the agreement on March 1, 2007. In a referendum on October 7, 2007, Costa Rica narrowly backed the free trade agreement, with 51.6% voting "Yes"; the agreement took effect on January 1, 2009.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.latinamericapress.org/article.asp?lanCode=1&artCode=5348|title=Latinamerica Press: Article|date=May 10, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080510105108/http://www.latinamericapress.org/article.asp?lanCode=1&artCode=5348|archive-date=May 10, 2008}}</ref>

===Chile===
{{Main|Chile–United States relations|Chile–United States Free Trade Agreement}}

President Bush signed the ] signed on June 6, 2003.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/business/chile-and-us-sign-accord-on-free-trade.html |title=Chile and U.S. Sign Accord on Free Trade |work=The New York Times |date=June 7, 2003 |access-date=December 15, 2010}}</ref> The pact<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/chile-fta/final-text |title=Final Text {{pipe}} Office of the United States Trade Representative |publisher=Ustr.gov |access-date=December 15, 2010}}</ref> came into force on January 1, 2004. On that date, tariffs on 90% of U.S. exports to Chile and 95% of Chilean exports to the United States were eliminated.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/archives/2004/june/-us-chile-free-trade-agreement-early-record-suc |title=The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement: An Early Record of Success {{pipe}} Office of the United States Trade Representative |publisher=Ustr.gov |date=January 1, 2004 |access-date=December 15, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101015085054/http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/archives/2004/june/-us-chile-free-trade-agreement-early-record-suc |archive-date=October 15, 2010 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The agreement also established that Chile and the U.S. will establish duty-free trade in all products within a maximum of 12 years (2016).<ref>http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reports/2010/NTE/2010_NTE_Chile_final.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> In 2009, bilateral trade between the United States and Chile reached US$15.4 billion, a 141% increase over bilateral trade levels before the U.S.-Chile FTA took effect. In particular, U.S. exports to Chile in 2009 showed a 248% increase over pre-FTA levels.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.buyusa.gov/chile/en/chile_country_commercial_guide.pdf |title=Doing Business in Chile: 2010 Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies |access-date=December 6, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100605192049/https://www.buyusa.gov/chile/en/chile_country_commercial_guide.pdf |archive-date=June 5, 2010}}</ref>

===Mexico===
{{Main|Mexico–United States relations}}
], March 2005]]

During Fox's administration, Mexico pushed for ] of U.S. immigration law that addressed the problem of ]. The issue had been called "The Whole Enchilada" by Fox's administration, which stated that "immigration reform in the United States should address mutual border problems, the rights of undocumented immigrants, and the development of regions in Mexico that 'expel' migrants".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32797MIGRATION-US:|title=Mexico Still Wants "The Whole Enchilada"}}{{Dead link|date=December 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> However, according to former U.S. ambassador to Mexico ], all discussions between the parties on immigration were informal.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.elpais.es/articulo/reportajes/oso/puercoespin/elpdomrpj/20040104elpdmgrep_3/Tes/El|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120801190537/http://www.elpais.es/articulo/reportajes/oso/puercoespin/elpdomrpj/20040104elpdmgrep_3/Tes/El| url-status=dead |title=oso y el puercoespín · ELPAÍS.com|archive-date=August 1, 2012}}</ref>

The immigration reform that Fox sought included a ]. Fox said, "The best thing that can happen to both our countries is to have an orderly flow, a controlled flow, of migration to the United States".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/mexico/stories/DN-mexicofox_30int.ART.State.Edition2.e950034.htmlDallas|title=Morning News {{pipe}} News for Dallas, Texas {{pipe}} Mexico News {{pipe}} Dallas Morning News}}</ref> This reform was supported by President Bush and approved by the U.S. Senate, however, the bill was rejected by the House of Representatives.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/immigration;_ylt=A86.I1NlGTZEThIBNBxnr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-Bill|title=rejected by House of Representatives}}</ref> According to ], the hopes were complicated by the recent approval of the SBI (]), a bill that includes building a {{convert|700|mi|km|adj=on}} triple fence between the U.S. and Mexico.<ref>
</ref>

During Fox's presidency the ] in Mexico increased 152% from −2.84 migrants per 1,000 inhabitants<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2000/net_migration_rate.html |title=CIA – The World Factbook 2000 – Net migration rate |access-date=May 29, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081118032235/http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2000/net_migration_rate.html |archive-date=November 18, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> to −4.32;<ref name="factbook">
, The CIA factbook.</ref> in the same period, ] decreased 35% from 1.57%<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012115226/http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=29&Country=MX |date=October 12, 2007}}</ref> to 1.16%.<ref name="factbook" /> Fox, who was said to be "proud" of Mexican immigrants in the U.S.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402389.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | title=Mexico's Fox Urges Fairness for Immigrants | first=T.R. | last=Reid | date=May 25, 2006 | access-date=May 2, 2010}}</ref> has acknowledged the importance of ]s by both legal and illegal Mexican workers in the U.S. (now the #1 source of revenue for the country).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/21/MNGFQIVNAF1.DTL | work=The San Francisco Chronicle | title=Give and take across the border / 1 in 7 Mexican workers migrates – most send money home| first=Carolyn | last=Lochhead | date=May 21, 2006}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20030924-2051-us-mexico.html|title=SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Mexico – Remittances are Mexico's biggest source of income, says Fox}}</ref>

During the country's tenure as a ], Mexico did not support the ].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-threat-divides-world/|work=CBS News|author=Jarrett Murphy|title=War Threat Divides World | date=March 21, 2003}}</ref>

===Peru===
{{Main|Peru–United States relations|Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement}}

On November 18, 2003, the ], ], notified Congress of the intention of the ] to initiate negotiations for a ] agreement with the countries involved in the Andean trade act.<ref>Office of the United States Trade Representative, '' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080119134848/http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2003/November/USTR_Notifies_Congress_of_Intent_to_Initiate_Free_Trade_Talks_with_Andean_Countries.html |date=January 19, 2008}}''. November 18, 2003. Retrieved on December 4, 2007.</ref> Negotiations started without Bolivia in May 2004, however, as each of the three remaining Andean countries decided to pursue bilateral agreements with the United States. After 13 rounds of negotiations, Peru and the United States concluded an agreement on December 7, 2005. ], Peruvian Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism, and the U.S. Trade Representative ] signed the deal on April 12, 2006, in ], in the presence of Peruvian President ].

The Congress of Peru debated the agreement for six hours during the night of June 27, 2006, and ratified it in the early hours of the next day. The vote was 79–14, with seven abstentions.<ref>{{in lang|es}} El Comercio, ''''. June 28, 2006. Retrieved on November 30, 2007.</ref> The U.S. House of Representatives approved the agreement on November 8, 2007, with a 285–132 vote.<ref>''The New York Times'', . November 8, 2007. Retrieved on November 30, 2007.</ref><ref>House Clerk's Office, . Retrieved on February 13, 2008.</ref> The U.S. Senate approved the agreement on December 4, 2007, with a 77–18 vote.<ref>''The New York Times'', . December 5, 2007. Retrieved on December 5, 2007.</ref><ref>Senate Clerk's Office, . Retrieved on February 13, 2008.</ref> The implementation bills gained wide support from the ] (176–16 in the House, 47–1 in the Senate) and split backing from the ] (109–116 and 29–17).

On January 16, 2009, Bush signed a proclamation To Implement the ] and for Other Purposes, effective February 1, 2009.

==Asia==

===ASEAN===
President Bush simultaneously improved relations with India, Japan, South Korea, China, and ].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/45521/Bush-SEA_KF_Cronin_17July2007.pdf|title=The Second Bush Administration and Southeast Asia-Richard P. Cronin Senior Associate-The Henry L. Stimson Center|publisher=www.files.ethz.ch|date=July 17, 2007|access-date=May 23, 2020}}</ref> Bush confirmed that he would be attending the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) conference for the first time during his presidency in 2007. However, he did not attend the conference due to American opposition to the government of Myanmar at the time.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.asiaone.com/News/The%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20071220-41882.html |title= Plans for Bush-Asean summit hit brick wall |access-date=March 6, 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170306151351/http://news.asiaone.com/News/The%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20071220-41882.html |archive-date=March 6, 2017}} '']''.</ref>

===China===
{{Main|China–United States relations#George W. Bush administration (2001–2009)}}
] ], April 2006]]

The Bush administration's policy towards China faced the difficult task of sustaining the cooperative ] in the context of China's rise. China's success in economic development since the 1979 reforms had allowed Beijing to transform growing Chinese material wealth into political and military power.<ref name=autogenerated5>{{cite journal|publisher=www.tandfonline.com|date=May 31, 2017|doi=10.1080/03068374.2017.1313618|title=George W. Bush and Asia: In the Shadow of 11 September|last1=Nguyen|first1=Thi Thuy Hang|journal=Asian Affairs|volume=48|issue=2|pages=313–333|s2cid=159960515}}</ref> ], serving in Bush's cabinet as US Trade Representative and Deputy Secretary of State, once underlined that "China is big, it is growing, and it will influence the world in the years ahead.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> At the end of his second term, President Bush had successfully managed to establish significant elements of US-China cooperation and build a record of cooperation with a rising China while achieving US national interests.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> During his presidential campaign, Bush revealed his disagreement with the Clinton administration's view of China as "a competitor, not a strategic partner. While seeing China as a power in transition and asserting that if China became a friend of the US, "that friendship will steady the world. But if not, the peace we seek may not be found", Bush warned that China would be "respected as a great power{{nbsp}}... unthreatened, but not unchecked", under his administration.<ref name=autogenerated5 />

Bush became increasingly concerned about China's growing economic and political influence in the world, often labelled as 'China's rise', and its implications for US primacy and interests.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> President Bush believed that China's rise was an inevitable phenomenon that the United States had to manage.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> He strived to build a "constructive, candid, and cooperative" relationship with China.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> This, in Bush's viewpoint, would form a sturdy basis for the US to advance engagement with China.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> In fact, Bush's determination to increase cooperation with China led to "the best relations since 1972.<ref name=autogenerated5 />

The Bush administration had made efforts to embed the Chinese economy in the international economic system, assist Chinese economic development and share the mutual economic benefits between the two nations.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> In 2001, despite a confrontation between Washington and Beijing over the downed EP-3E Aries II spy plane which collided with a Chinese fighter jet, President Bush still declared his support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. He said, "I'm an advocate of China's entry into the WTO", stressing that "China ought to be a trading partner of ours. I think it is in our economic interests to open up the Chinese markets to U.S. products, to U.S. agricultural products".<ref name=autogenerated5 />

Also, President Bush actively supported permanent normalized trade relations with China.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> In his view, American farmers and businessmen would gain better benefits from freer access to the large Chinese market.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> He therefore asked the US Congress to extend normalized trade relations with China in 2001: "Fair trade is essential not only to improving living standards for Americans but also for a strong and productive relationship with China."<ref name=autogenerated5 /> President Bush and his team believed that trading with China would be a good thing for the US and Chinese economies.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> Integrating China into the world economy would ultimately lead to the promotion of human dignity in China and the emergence of a good China. In her 2000 article entitled "Promoting the National Interest" Condoleezza Rice, Bush's Secretary of State, wrote: President Bush's efforts to build a cooperative relationship with China can also be seen in his way of maintaining frank and productive relations with Chinese leaders.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> In 2002–2003 the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) broke out in China. There were up to 5,327 infections and 348 deaths in China. While the Chinese leadership had been criticized for its handling of the SARS outbreak, President Bush praised his Chinese counterpart for being open about this transnational epidemic. President Bush's public support for President Hu in that critical moment was highly appreciated by the Chinese president and contributed to building cooperative leader-to-leader relations between the United States and China.<ref name=autogenerated5 />

In the mid-2000s, the United States focused relatively less on China issues.<ref name=":042">{{Cite book |last=Crean |first=Jeffrey |title=The Fear of Chinese Power: an International History |date=2024 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-350-23394-2 |edition= |series=New Approaches to International History series |location=London, UK}}</ref>{{Rp|page=158}} This approach was reinforced by the economic benefits to the United States from its relations with China, including cheaper consumer products like clothing and electronics.<ref name=":042" />{{Rp|page=158}} During this period, the United States also issued significant debt to fund its military interventions and China became the largest foreign purchaser of U.S. government debt.<ref name=":042" />{{Rp|page=158}}

President Bush called Chinese President ] March 26, 2008, to express his concern about China's crackdown on protesters in ] since March 10, 2008. Bush and Hu also discussed issues including ], ]'s denuclearization and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20080327/NEWS/803270328|title=Bush confronts Chinese leader over Tibet crackdown, says Taiwan missile fuse shipment mistake|publisher=www.southcoasttoday.com|date=March 26, 2008|access-date=May 23, 2020}}</ref>

===India===
{{Main|India–United States relations}}
], July 2005]]

Relations with India improved significantly during Bush's tenure. In September 2001, President Bush removed sanctions which had been imposed.<ref name=autogenerated6>{{cite journal|last=Ejaz |first=Ahmad |url=http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/4%20-%20Ahmad%20Ejaz%20Artical-2_v13No1.pdf |title=United States-India Relations: An expanding strategic partnership |journal=Pakistan Vision |volume=13 |access-date=December 17, 2013 |issue=1}}</ref>

During the tenure of the ], relations between India and the United States were seen to have blossomed, primarily over common concerns regarding growing ], energy security, and climate change.<ref name=autogenerated6 /> Bush commented, "India is a great example of democracy. It is very devout, has diverse religious heads, but everyone is comfortable about their religion. The world needs India".<ref> March 3, 2006</ref> ], in his book '']'', described Bush as "being the most pro-Indian president in American history."<ref>Zakaria, Fareed, The Post-American World, 2008 Cahapter VII, pp. 225–226</ref> Similar sentiments are echoed by ], a scholar of Indian foreign policy and ideologue of ] – the largest constituent of the ]. According to ], the ] rule has seen a "transformation in bilateral ties with the US", as a result of which the relations now covers "a wide range of issues, including high technology, space, education, agriculture, trade, clean energy, counter-terrorism, etc.".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Laskar|first1=Rejaul|title=Promoting National Interest Through Diplomacy|journal=Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Diplomatist|date=December 2013|volume=1|issue=9|page=60}}</ref>

After the December ], the US and Indian navies cooperated in search and rescue operations and in the reconstruction of affected areas.

Since 2004, Washington and New Delhi have been pursuing a "strategic partnership" that is based on shared values and generally convergent geopolitical interests. Numerous economic, security, and global initiatives – including plans for civilian nuclear cooperation – are underway. This latter initiative, first launched in 2005, reversed three decades of American non-proliferation policy. Also in 2005, the United States and India signed a ten-year defence framework agreement, with the goal of expanding bilateral security cooperation. The two countries engaged in numerous and unprecedented combined military exercises, and major US arms sales to India were concluded. An ] was signed in April 2005, enhancing trade, tourism, and business via the increased number of flights, and ] purchased 68 US ] aircraft at a cost of $8 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boeing.co.in/Boeing-in-India/About-Boeing-in-India |title=About Boeing in India |publisher=Boeing India |access-date=December 17, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140209045547/http://www.boeing.co.in/Boeing-in-India/About-Boeing-in-India |archive-date=February 9, 2014 }}</ref> The United States and India also signed a bilateral Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation in 2005.<ref name="auto4"/> After ], India donated $5 million to the ] and sent two planeloads of relief supplies and materials to help.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ia.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/03katrina.htm |title=India pledges 5 million dollars for Katrina relief |publisher=Ia.rediff.com |date=September 3, 2005 |access-date=December 17, 2013}}</ref> Then, on March 1, 2006, President Bush made another diplomatic visit to further expand relations between India and the U.S.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/news_archive/mar_06_nuclear.pdf|title=March 2006 news archive|website=ipcs.org|access-date=March 25, 2018}}</ref>

===Japan===
{{Main|Japan–United States relations}}
], September 2001]]

During Bush's visit to Japan, In his address to the Japanese parliament in February 2002, President Bush expressed his gratitude to Japan for supporting the US in the ], and asserting that the Japanese response to the terrorist threat showed the strength of the US-Japan alliance and "the indispensable role of Japan, a role that is global, and begins in Asia".<ref name=autogenerated5 /> President Bush also convinced members of Japan's parliament that the 21st century would be "the Pacific century", and committed to giving support to Japan.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> The Bush administration made important progress in deepening US-Japan security cooperation.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> Under Bush, bilateral security initiatives between the United States and Japan were centred on counter-terrorism cooperation.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> President Bush endorsed the idea that Japan should play a more active international role and praised Japan for its passage of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law that allowed Japan to send refuelling tankers to the Indian Ocean to assist ] in 2001.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> On December 9, 2003, the Japanese Diet passed the Humanitarian Relief and Iraqi Reconstruction Special Measures Law that allowed Prime Minister Koizumi to dispatch the Self Defence Forces (SDF) to Iraq.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> In January 2004, Japan sent a total of 1,000 military personnel (including 550 Ground Self-Defence Force personnel and 450 Maritime Self-Defence Force and Air Self- Defence Force personnel) to Iraq to provide humanitarian assistance and take part in reconstruction activities.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> This was the first time in the post-war period Japanese troops were sent overseas without an inter- national mandate.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> Japan withdrew its ground forces in 2006 while a Japanese self-defence forces air division stayed in Iraq until the expiration of the UN authorisation for multilateral forces in Iraq in 2008. Indeed, under Bush, military cooperation between Washington and Tokyo in Afghanistan and Iraq became a new dimension and a symbol of their alliance.<ref name=autogenerated5 />

===North Korea===
{{Main|North Korea–United States relations}}

Bush publicly condemned ] of North Korea and identified North Korea as one of the three states in an "]" in his ]. He said that "the United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." and that "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens"<ref name=sotu2002/> Within months, "both countries had walked away from their respective commitments under the U.S.–DPRK ] of October 1994."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Summer/art1-su3.htm|title=The United States, North Korea, and the End of the Agreed Framework|last=Pollack|first=Jonathan D.|publisher=Naval War College Review|date=Summer 2003|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060818114650/http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Summer/art1-su3.htm|archive-date=August 18, 2006|volume=LV I|issue=3}}</ref> President Bush in his ], stated that "We're working closely with the governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions" and that "In the next 4 years, my administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time".<ref>. February 2, 2005.</ref> North Korea's October 9, 2006, ] of a nuclear device further complicated Bush's foreign policy, which centered for both terms of his presidency on " the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world".<ref name=sotu2002/> Bush condemned North Korea's position, reaffirmed his commitment to "a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula", and said that "transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States", for which North Korea would be held accountable.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061009.html |title=President Bush's Statement on North Korea Nuclear Test |date=October 9, 2006 |access-date=June 23, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080822122622/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061009.html |archive-date=August 22, 2008 |via=] |work=] |url-status=dead}}</ref>

] had ] for several years prior to Bush's inauguration, and the Clinton administration had sought to trade economic assistance for an end to the North Korean WMD program. Though Secretary of State Powell urged the continuation of the rapprochement, other administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, were more skeptical of the good faith of the North Koreans. Bush instead sought to isolate North Korea in the hope that the regime would eventually collapse.<ref>Mann (2015), pp. 186–189</ref>

] on July 5, 2006, leading to ]. The country said on October 3, 2006 "The U.S. extreme threat of a ] and ] and pressure compel the ] to conduct a ]", which the Bush administration denied and denounced.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/03/nkorea.nuclear/index.html|title=North Korea pledges to test nuclear bomb|publisher=]|date=October 4, 2006|access-date=October 16, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061022231456/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/03/nkorea.nuclear/index.html|archive-date=October 22, 2006|url-status=live}}</ref> Days later on October 9, 2006, North Korea followed through on its promise to ].<ref>{{cite news|author=] and lnews services|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna15287725|title=U.S. confirms N. Korean blast was radioactive|work=]|date=October 16, 2006|access-date=October 16, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305095057/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15287725/|archive-date=March 5, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> On October 14, 2006, the Security Council unanimously passed ], sanctioning North Korea for the test.<ref>{{cite news|author=]|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/security-council-unanimously-approves-sanctions-on-n-korea|title=Security Council Unanimously Approves Sanctions on N. Korea|publisher=]|date=October 14, 2006|access-date=October 14, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061015222127/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220760,00.html|archive-date=October 15, 2006|url-status=live}}</ref> In the waning days of his presidency, Bush attempted to re-open negotiations with North Korea, but North Korea continued to develop its nuclear programs.<ref name="kesslernk">{{cite news|last1=Kessler|first1=Glenn|title=Cotton's misguided history lesson on the North Korean nuclear deal|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/13/cottons-misguided-history-lesson-on-the-north-korean-nuclear-deal/|access-date=April 8, 2017|newspaper=Washington Post|date=March 13, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161112081807/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/13/cottons-misguided-history-lesson-on-the-north-korean-nuclear-deal/|archive-date=November 12, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

On May 7, 2007, North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear reactors immediately pending the release of frozen funds held in a foreign bank account. This was a result of a series of three-way talks initiated by the United States and including China.<ref>{{cite news |agency=] |url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/north-korea-ready-to-shut-down-reactor-immediately |title=North Korea Ready to Shut Down Reactor 'Immediately' |publisher=Fox News Channel |date=May 7, 2007 |access-date=September 1, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070509020138/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C270397%2C00.html |archive-date=May 9, 2007 |url-status=live}}</ref> On September 2, 2007, North Korea agreed to disclose and dismantle all its nuclear programs by the end of 2007.<ref>{{cite news |title=U.S.: North Korea agrees to shut down nuke facilities |agency=Associated Press |publisher=CNN |date=September 2, 2007 |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/koreas.nuclear.ap/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070917103449/http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/koreas.nuclear.ap/index.html |archive-date=September 17, 2007 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Singapore===
{{Main|Singapore–United States relations|Singapore–United States Free Trade Agreement}}
] signing the ], May 2003]]

President Bush and Singaporean Prime Minister ] signed a ] on May 6, 2003; the agreement entered into force on January 1, 2004. The growth of U.S. investment in Singapore and the large number of Americans living there enhance opportunities for contact between Singapore and the United States.<ref name="U.S. State Dept. 2009">{{cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2798.htm|title=Background Note: Singapore|publisher=Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State|date=September 2009|access-date=March 11, 2010}}</ref>

===South Korea===
{{Main|South Korea–United States relations|United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement}}
], May 2003]]

President Bush simultaneously improved relations with South Korea. On February 20, 2002, during President Bush's visit to South Korea, Bush and South Korean President ] recognized that the ] is indispensable not only for stability on the Korean Peninsula but also in Northeast Asia as a whole. Furthermore, President Bush and Kim Dae-Jung expressed satisfaction that the bilateral alliance is not limited to cooperation in security matters but that the comprehensive partnership has expanded and developed to all areas, including political, economic, and diplomatic arenas.<ref name=autogenerated7>{{cite web|url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-kim-dae-jung-south-korea-seoul-south-korea|title=The President's News Conference With President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea in Seoul, South Korea|publisher=www.presidency.ucsb.edu|date=February 20, 2002|access-date=May 23, 2020}}</ref> President Bush and president Kim Dae-jung exchanged views about the war against terrorism and future course of action. and Dae-Jung praised President Bush for the success in the war against terrorism under his outstanding leadership and indicated that South Korea as an ally would do its utmost to cooperate and provide full support.<ref name=autogenerated7 /> In December 2001, South Korea deployed troops to the ] . Afterwards, South Korea took only the role of providing medical and vocational training by assisting the United States with only two dozen volunteers working inside ], north of Kabul.<ref name=autogenerated8>{{cite journal|title=The ROK Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan|jstor = resrep05670.4|last1 = Hemmings|first1 = John|last2 = Bruce|first2 = Scott|last3 = Hwang|first3 = Balbina Y.|last4 = Roehrig|first4 = Terence|last5 = Snyder|first5 = Scott A.|journal = Global Korea|year = 2012|pages = 45–60}}</ref> According to an ISAF statement, on June 30, 2008, South Korea returned, operating a small hospital near the airbase in Bagram with military and civilian personnel.<ref name=autogenerated8 /> In February 2004, South Korea deployed troops to Iraq as part of the ] to provide support to U.S. forces in the ], which was also another boost in ].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/south-korean-troops-iraq-boost-us-rok-relations|title=South Korean Troops to Iraq: A Boost for U.S.-ROK Relations|publisher=www.heritage.org|date=February 13, 2004|access-date=May 23, 2020}}</ref>

===Taiwan===
{{Main|Taiwan–United States relations}}

Bush's hostile position toward China in the 2000 campaign and early months of his presidency was suddenly reversed after 9/11, and his especially friendly attitude toward Taiwan became a casualty. During his campaign Bush had warned that Clinton was too friendly with China, which he saw as a strategic competitor. Early on as president Bush increased arms sales to Taiwan, including 8 submarines. He was asked on April 25, 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do{{nbsp}}... and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."<ref name="go.com">{{cite web |url=http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/taiwan010425.html |title=Bush Vows Taiwan Support |access-date=June 1, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031110065750/http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/taiwan010425.html |archive-date=November 10, 2003 }}</ref> He made it understood that "though we have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."<ref name="go.com"/> However, on the advice of Rice and Powell, he later explained that he was not changing America's historical relationships.<ref>Jean Edward Smith, ''Bush'' (2016) p 197.</ref> The shock of 9/11 force Bush to move closer to China. Soon he was calling China a strategic partner in the war on terror and postponing deals with Taiwan.<ref>Guy Roberts, "Circling the Middle Kingdom: George W. Bush and China 1999–2003" ''Australasian Journal of American Studies'' (2011) 30#1 pp 57-71.</ref>

Taiwan's leadership was increasingly nervous in the early 21st century. It had to deal with growing isolation around the world because of China's pressure on other countries. In economic terms, it was facing worsening trade relationships with major trading partners. According to Chen-Don Tso, Taiwan was unable to make free trade agreements with them. Its main goal was to reach an explicit partnership with the United States. However, repeated efforts by Taiwan especially in 2003 to 2006 were rejected by Washington, in its quest to improve relations with Beijing.<ref>Chen-Don Tso, "The US-Taiwan FTA during the Bush-Chen Era Revisited: Trade and Strategic Accounts Compared". ''Issues & Studies'' 48.1 (2012) pp 5184.</ref>

==Europe==

===Historical background===
], President Bush, British Prime Minister ] and Italian Prime minister ] at the ] at Evian, France. Chirac was against the invasion, the other three leaders were in favor of it.]]

President Bush made his first visit to Europe in June 2001.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/06/12/itinerary/index.html |title=President Bush's first-ever trip to Europe |date=June 12, 2001 |author=Tom McNichol |publisher=Salon Media Group |access-date=September 16, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090210110311/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/06/12/itinerary/index.html |archive-date=February 10, 2009}}</ref> Bush came under criticism from European leaders for the rejection of the ], which was aimed at reducing ] emissions that contribute to ]. He asserted that the Kyoto Protocol is "unfair and ineffective" because it would exempt 80 percent of the world and "cause serious harm to the U.S. economy".<ref>{{cite web|title=Text of a Letter From The President|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html|access-date=September 2, 2017|language=en|via=]|work=]|date=March 13, 2001}}</ref> Post September 11, President Bush worked closely with his ] allies in Europe, to fight against the ] and ], in ]. However, after the ], relations were strained with France and Germany, who strongly opposed the invasion. But President Bush had an excellent relationship with ] of Britain and ] of Italy, which took part in the wars in both ] and ]. Bush began his second term with an emphasis on improving strained relations with European nations. Bush lauded the pro-democracy struggles in ] and ]. However, ] of ] and ] of ], both undemocratically elected and fiercely ],{{citation needed|date=February 2010}} received official state visits to the White House,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060428.html|title=President Bush Welcomes President Aliyev of Azerbaijan to the White House|access-date=October 23, 2006|date=April 28, 2005|work=Transcript from The Oval Office|publisher=Office of the Press Secretary}}</ref> along with increased economic and military assistance.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042301017.html|title=Retreat From the Freedom Agenda|access-date=October 23, 2006|date=April 24, 2006|newspaper=The Washington Post|first=Jackson|last=Diehl}}</ref> The President had encouraged both leaders to hold free and fair elections early on in his second term, but in fact neither leader carried out significant reforms.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/azerbaijan-protests-face-crackdown/|title=Azerbaijan Protests Face Crackdown|access-date=October 23, 2006|date=November 27, 2005|work=CBS News}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/235340A7-FE24-4C1F-97E5-CEC841B6A0CD.html|title=Supporters Of Slain Kazakh Oppositionist Open Probe|access-date=October 23, 2006|date=August 29, 2006|publisher=Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.perspicacityonline.com/Articles/2005/01/Kuzbekistan050118.htm|title=Setback for Democracy in Kazakhstan|access-date=October 23, 2006|date=January 12, 2005|publisher=Perspicacity Press Online|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060509181655/http://www.perspicacityonline.com/Articles/2005/01/Kuzbekistan050118.htm|archive-date=May 9, 2006}}</ref>

===Belarus===
{{Main|Belarus–United States relations}}

President Bush signed the ] on October 20, 2004, to impose sanctions on the Belarus government of ].<ref name="CSCE">{{cite web |title=Press Release: President Bush Signs Belarus Democracy Act on Heels of Rigged Elections and Referendum |url=https://www.csce.gov/international-impact/press-and-media/press-releases/president-bush-signs-belarus-democracy-act-heels |website=CSCE |access-date=February 15, 2019 |language=en |date=March 8, 2016}}</ref> The law expresses the sense of Congress that the ]ian authorities should not receive various types of non-humanitarian financial aid from the U.S. It also calls for the President to report to Congress on arms sales by Belarus to state sponsors of ] and on the personal wealth and assets of senior Belarus officials.<ref name="CSCE" /> President Bush said in his signing statement of October 20, 2004, "will work with our allies and partners to assist those seeking to return Belarus to its rightful place among the Euro-Atlantic community of democracies."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bush |first1=George W. |title=Statement on the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 (Text Only) |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/text/20041020-14.html |via=] |work=] |access-date=February 14, 2019}}</ref>

In June 2006, President Bush issued executive order to freeze the US assets of hard-line Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and nine other individuals deemed obstacles to democracy in the former Soviet republic. "There is simply no place in a Europe whole and free for a regime of this kind", Bush said in a letter to the US Congress announcing his executive order, which affects assets held in the United States or by US financial institutions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aaj.tv/english/world/bush-slaps-sanctions-on-belarus-officials/|title=Bush slaps sanctions on Belarus officials|publisher=AAJ.TV|date=June 19, 2006|access-date=May 25, 2020}}{{Dead link|date=April 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

On December 8, 2006, the ] passed, and (following Senate enactment) on January 12, 2007, President Bush signed into law, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, a statute amending and updating the act.<ref>{{cite web |title=H.R. 5948 – 109th Congress (2005–2006): Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/5948 |website=www.congress.gov |access-date=February 14, 2019 |date=January 12, 2007}}</ref>

===Czech Republic===
{{Main|Czech Republic–United States relations}}

President Bush enjoyed a strong relationship with ] ]. On January 30, 2003, Havel signed '']'' supporting the U.S. led ].<ref name="auto1">{{cite news |title=Full text of letter written by eight European leaders |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/full-text-of-letter-written-by-eight-european-leaders-1.459198 |newspaper=] |date=January 30, 2003}}</ref> Havel also deployed Czech forces in the ] as part the ] in May 2003.<ref>{{cite news|title=Parliament approves withdrawal of most Czech troops from Iraq in 2008|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/05/europe/EU-GEN-Czech-Iraq.php|access-date=December 21, 2015|agency=The Associated Press|publisher=International Herald Tribune|date=December 5, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080518003014/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/05/europe/EU-GEN-Czech-Iraq.php|archive-date=May 18, 2008}}</ref>

Havel's successor ], also deployed Czech forces in the ] in 2004.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.mise.army.cz/errmsg/errorNoNews.html|title=Špatná zpráva|website=www.mise.army.cz|access-date=May 25, 2020|archive-date=February 25, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200225032244/http://www.mise.army.cz/errmsg/errorNoNews.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Denmark===
{{Main|Denmark–United States relations}}
], July 2005]]

President Bush and Danish Prime Minister ] enjoyed a strong friendship. Denmark with Rasmussen, deployed forces to the ] in 2001 as part of ] forces in the ]. Rasmussen strongly supported the ] and was one of the signatories of ] on January 30, 2003.<ref name="auto1"/> As in most European countries he faced considerable opposition, both in the parliament and in the general population. Subsequent opinion polls suggested the Danish population's opinion was split on the issue. One vocal protester managed to get into the Danish parliament during the period before the war, where he poured red paint on the prime minister while yelling "Du har blod på dine hænder" (literally: "You have blood on your hands"). A member of the Danish parliament for the socialist ], ], stated that it was a reaction she might have made under the circumstances, although she later denounced such behaviour. Denmark was one of only five countries to take part in the actual invasion operations (the others being the ], ], ] and ]) though the contingent mainly consisted of two minor warships and staff and radio units that were never involved in actual combat. In the months after the initial phase of the war, Danish troops participated in the ]. Approximately 550 ] from 2004 and into 2007, first at "Camp Dannevang" and later at "Camp Einherjer", both near ]. When the contingent of troops left around August 2007, it was not replaced and Denmark shifted its focus to non-military support around Baghdad. The official reason provided is that the Iraqi government should now be able to handle security in the Basra area. Critics of Rasmussen argued that the withdrawal was motivated by decreasing domestic support for the war.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/worldlatest/story/0,,-6430163,00.html|title=World news and comment from the Guardian – The Guardian|work=the Guardian|access-date=April 19, 2015|location=London}}</ref>

===France===
{{Main|France–United States relations}}
], May 2002]]

France with President ] deployed French forces to NATO's ] in 2001,<ref>{{in lang|fr}} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091201021218/http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-monde/2009-02-11/chronologie-de-l-engagement-francais-en-afghanistan/1648/0/316138 |date=December 1, 2009}}, ], 11 Février 2009</ref> but relations with France became strained after Chirac emerged as a leading voice against Bush and ] in 2003 during the organization and deployment of American and British forces participating in a ] to ] the government of ] controlled by the ] under the leadership of ]. Despite British and American pressure, Chirac threatened to veto, at that given point, a resolution in the ] that would authorise the use of military force to rid ], and rallied other governments to his position. "Iraq today does not represent an immediate threat that justifies an immediate war", Chirac said on March 18, 2003.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764561501/jacques-chirac-french-president-who-opposed-u-s-iraq-war-is-dead-at-86|title=Jacques Chirac, French President Who Opposed U.S. Iraq War, Is Dead At 86|publisher=www.npr.org|date=September 26, 2019|access-date=May 24, 2020}}</ref> French foreign minister ] acquired much of his popularity for his speech against the war at the United Nations (UN).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foreignpolicy.org.tr/documents/villepin_140203_p.htm |title=Statement by Dominique de Villepin to the UNSC |publisher=Foreignpolicy.org.tr |date=February 14, 2003 |access-date=November 5, 2010 |archive-date=December 24, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101224193413/http://foreignpolicy.org.tr/documents/villepin_140203_p.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Germany===
{{Main|Germany–United States relations}}
], October 2001]]
], November 2007]]

German Chancellor ] sent forces to ] as part of ] operations of the ] because due to Germany having a long experience with ] itself, Schröder declared solidarity with the United States after the ] in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/07/afghanistan.terrorism4|title=German troops to join war effort|work=The Guardian|date=November 6, 2001|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref> When Schröder left office, Germany had 2,000 troops in Afghanistan, the largest contingent from any nation other than the United States, UK, France, Canada and after two years Afghanistan.

However, relations with Germany became strained, after Schröder later spoke out strongly against the ] and refused any military assistance in that enterprise.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/06/iraq.johnhooper|title=German leader says no to Iraq war|publisher=www.theguardian.com|date=August 5, 2002|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref> Schröder's stance caused political friction between the US and Germany, in particular because he used this topic for his 2002 election campaign. Schröder's stance set the stage for alleged anti-American statements by members of the SPD. The parliamentary leader of the SPD, ], compared Bush to ] while Schröder's Minister of Justice, ], likened Bush's foreign policy to that of ]. Schröder's critics accused him of enhancing, and campaigning on, anti-American sentiments in Germany. After his 2002 re-election, Schröder and Bush rarely met and their animosity was seen as a widening political gap between the US and Europe. Bush stated in his memoirs that Schröder initially promised to support the Iraq war but changed his mind with the upcoming German elections and public opinion strongly against the invasion, to which Schröder responded saying that Bush was "not telling the truth".<ref>{{cite web|last=Khan|first=Adnan R.|url=http://www.macleans.ca/2010/11/24/schroder-bush-dust-up|title=The Schröder-Bush dust-up – World|publisher=Macleans.ca|date=November 24, 2010|access-date=March 17, 2013}}</ref> When asked in March 2003 if he were at all self-critical about his position on Iraq, Schröder replied, "I very much regret there were excessive statements" from himself and former members of his government (which capitalised on the war's unpopularity).<ref>] (March 5, 2003), {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005152440/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/05/news/news-analysis-schroeder-is-edging-closer-to-blair-views.html |date=October 5, 2017}} ''The New York Times''.</ref>

===Italy===
{{Main|Italy–United States relations}}
], October 2005]]

President Bush enjoyed a strong relationship with Italian Prime Minister ]. Italy, with Berlusconi in office, became a solid ally of the United States due to his support in deploying Italian troops in the ] and the ] following the ] in the ]. On January 30, 2003, Berlusconi signed '']'' supporting ].<ref name="auto1"/>

Berlusconi, in his meetings with ] ] and President Bush, said that he pushed for "a clear turnaround in the Iraqi situation" and for a quick handover of sovereignty to the government chosen by the Iraqi people.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41722-2004May20.html|title=The Italian Connection|last=Roberts|first=Roxanne|date=May 2004|newspaper=]}}</ref> Italy had some 3,200 troops deployed in Southern Iraq, the third largest contingent there after the American and British forces.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts : The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts|last=Tucker|first=Spencer C.|publisher=ABC-CLIO|year=2010|isbn=9781851099481|pages=609}}</ref> When ] became Prime Minister, Italian troops were gradually withdrawn from Iraq in the second half of 2006 with the last soldiers leaving the country in December of that year.

===NATO===
{{Further|NATO}}

In November 2002, at a ] Bush stated "Our NATO alliance faces dangers very different from those it was formed to confront. Yet, never has our need for collective defense been more urgent. The Soviet Union is gone, but freedom still has enemies. We're threatened by terrorism, bred within failed states, it's present within our own cities. We're threatened by the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons which are produced by outlaw regimes and could be delivered either by missile or terrorist cell. For terrorists and terrorist states, every free nation is a potential target, including the free nations of Europe".<ref name=autogenerated2>{{cite web|url=https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s021120f.htm|title=Remarks by the President of the United States, George W. Bush to the Atlantic Student Summit|date=November 20, 2002|access-date= May 21, 2020}}</ref>

Bush then stated "To meet all of this century's emerging threats from terror camps in remote regions to hidden laboratories of outlaw regimes, NATO must develop new military capabilities. NATO forces must become better able to fight side by side. Those forces must be more mobile and more swiftly deployed. The allies need more special operations forces, better precision strike capabilities, and more modern command structures. Few NATO members will have state-of-the-art capabilities in all of these areas; I recognize that. But every nation should develop some. Ours is a military alliance, and every member must make a military contribution to that alliance. For some allies, this will require higher defense spending. For all of us, it will require more effective defense spending, with each nation adding the tools and technologies to fight and win a new kind of war".<ref name=autogenerated2 />

Bush then stated "The United States proposes the creation of a NATO response force that will bring together well-equipped, highly ready air, ground and sea forces from NATO allies – old and new. This force will be prepared to deploy on short notice wherever it is needed. A NATO response force will take time to create and we should begin that effort here in Prague. Yet, security against new threats requires more than just new capabilities. Free nations must accept our shared obligations to keep the peace. The world needs the nations of this continent to be active in the defense of freedom; not inward-looking or isolated by indifference. Ignoring dangers or excusing aggression may temporarily avert conflict, but they don't bring true peace".<ref name=autogenerated2 />

===Poland===
{{Main|Poland–United States relations}}
], 2007]]

President Bush enjoyed a strong relationship with Poland, As well as Poland deploying its forces in supporting the global ], ] in Afghanistan, and ] (where ]). Polish Prime Minister ]'s government, together with President Kwaśniewski, made a decision in March 2003 to join the ] and deploy Polish troops to Iraq, targeting at overthrowing Saddam Hussein's government. Leszek Miller was also a co-signatory of "]", signed by eight European prime ministers, supporting the US position on Iraq.<ref name="auto1"/> Already in 2002 Miller gave permission to the U.S. government to run a ] at ], three hours North of Warsaw. Years later he is facing accusations of acting anti-constitutionally by having tolerated the imprisonment and torture of prisoners.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.worldcrunch.com/rss/world-affairs/exclusive-inside-a-secret-cia-prison-in-the-polish-countryside/scandal-torture-prisoners-black-sites-szymany/c1s10876/ | title=Exclusive: Inside A Secret CIA Prison In The Polish Countryside | publisher=Worldcrunch/Sueddeutsche | date=February 8, 2013 | access-date=February 12, 2013}}</ref>

===Russia===
{{Main|Russia–United States relations#Putin and George W. Bush (2001–2009)}}
], July 2001]]

A planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe poses no threat to Russia, Bush, said April 1, 2008, responding to concerns that the U.S. might use interceptor missiles for offensive purposes. His comments came before he left ] for a ] in ], ], that is expected to highlight divisions over the plan. Russian President ] and Bush failed to resolve their differences over U.S. plans for the planned missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic, on their meeting in the Russian ] resort of ] on April 6, 2008, but said they had agreed a "strategic framework" to guide future U.S.-Russian relations, in which Russia and the U.S. said they recognized that the era in which each had considered the other to be a "strategic threat or enemy" was over. Before leaving April 1, 2008, for ], Bush told that Russia will not be able to veto ]'s or ]'s inclusion into ]. Bush said that both countries should be able to take part in ], which is designed to help aspiring countries meet the requirements of joining the alliance. Bush added that Ukraine already contributes to NATO missions, specifically in ], ] and ]. Ukraine also has demonstrated a commitment to democracy. Bush denied that the United States might ease off on membership plans for Ukraine and Georgia if Russia acquiesces on the missile shield.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/01/bush.nato/index.html|title=Bush: Missile shield no threat to Russia|access-date=April 1, 2008|date=April 1, 2008|publisher=CNN}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/06/bush.putin/index.html|title=Bush, Putin disagree on missile defense|access-date=April 6, 2008|date=April 6, 2008|publisher=CNN|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080408050408/http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/06/bush.putin/index.html|archive-date=April 8, 2008}}</ref>

===Spain===
{{Main|Spain–United States relations}}
], February 2003]]

Spanish Prime Minister ] actively supported Bush in the ]ism by first deploying Spanish forces in the ] in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ejercito.mde.es/ingles/mexterior/index_afganistan.html |title=Ejército de Tierra español |publisher=Ejercito.mde.es |date=December 1, 2001 |access-date=July 5, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100103050500/http://www.ejercito.mde.es/ingles/mexterior/index_afganistan.html |archive-date=January 3, 2010}}</ref> Aznar then met with Bush in a private meeting before ] to discuss the situation of in the ]. The Spanish newspaper '']'' leaked a ]. Aznar actively encouraged and supported the Bush administration's foreign policy and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and was one of the signatories of ] defending it on the basis of secret intelligence allegedly containing evidence of the Iraqi government's nuclear proliferation. Aznar then deployed Spanish forces to the ] as part of ] coalition forces.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.spain/|title=Spain: No combat role in Iraq war|publisher=www.cnn.com|date=March 18, 2003|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref> The majority of the Spanish population, including some members of Aznar's ], were against the war.

After the ], in which the Spanish socialists received more votes than expected as a result, besides other issues, of the government's handling of the ], ] succeeded Aznar as Prime Minister. Before being elected, Zapatero had opposed the American policy in regard to ] pursued by Aznar. During the electoral campaign Zapatero had promised to withdraw the troops if control in ] was not passed to the ] after June 30 (the ending date of the initial Spanish military agreement with the multinational coalition that had overthrown ]). On April 19, 2004, Zapatero announced the withdrawal of the 1300 Spanish troops in ].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/04/18/espana/1082303152.html|title=elmundo.es – Zapatero anuncia la retirada inmediata de las tropas de Irak|website=www.elmundo.es}}</ref>

The decision aroused international support worldwide, though the American Government claimed that the terrorists could perceive it as "a victory obtained due to 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings". ], then ] candidate for the American presidency, asked Zapatero not to withdraw the Spanish soldiers. Some months after withdrawing the troops, the Zapatero government agreed to increase the number of Spanish soldiers in ] and to send troops to ] to show the Spanish Government's willingness to spend resources on international missions approved by the UN.

===United Kingdom===
{{Main|United Kingdom–United States relations}}
], March 2003]]

President Bush and British Prime Minister ] enjoyed a strong relationship. On September 20, 2001, during his ], President Bush declared "America has no truer friend than Great Britain".<ref name="auto6"/> Blair deployed British forces to NATO's ], second only to the US in sending forces. Blair then took the lead (against the opposition of France, Canada, Germany, China, and Russia) in advocating the ] in 2003 and Blair was also one of the signatories of ] on January 30, 2003.<ref name="auto1"/>
Again Britain under Blair was second only to the US in sending forces to Iraq. Both sides wound down after 2009, and withdrew their last troops in 2011. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair provided sustained mutual political and diplomatic support and won votes in Congress and parliament against their critics at home.<ref>Shawcross (2004) ch 2</ref>

==Greater Middle East==


==International Security==
===Afghanistan=== ===Afghanistan===
{{Further|United States invasion of Afghanistan|War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)}}
{{Main|Afghanistan–United States relations}}
]


In his ] on September 20, 2001, President Bush condemned ] and his organization ], and issued an ultimatum to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where bin Laden was operating, to "hand over the terrorists, or{{nbsp}}... share in their fate".<ref name="auto6"/>
On ], ] two hijacked planes crashed into and destroyed the ] in ]. A third plane crashed into ] in ]. A fourth crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The attacks were greatly shocking both for their element of surprise and their subsequent horror. Over 3000 people perished in the destruction. Bush himself, along with Vice President Cheney and House Speaker ] were taken to secure, undisclosed locations for many hours on September 11th, as the extent of the attacks and the ambitions of the attackers remained uncertain for most of the day, and the following weeks. This was part of the plan that ], a White House adviser, had put into place for national emergencies.


On October 7, 2001, the ], instigating the ] and what became the early phase of the ]. President Bush confirmed the strikes in his address to the nation, Bush stated that "Taliban military sites and terrorist training grounds would be targeted". "Food, medicine and supplies would be dropped to the starving and suffering men, women and children of Afghanistan".<ref name="www_australianpolitics_com8">{{cite web|url=http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2001/01-10-07.shtml|title=australianpolitics.com|access-date=September 27, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070902122616/http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2001/01-10-07.shtml|archive-date=September 2, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref> NATO forces scoured the region for 9/11 alleged mastermind Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network Al-Qaeda and drove the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban regime, which was sheltering and providing sanctuary for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, from power. However once Bin Laden left Afghanistan and took up sanctuary in Pakistan, Bush said that he was "not that concerned about him" as the Al-Qaeda leader continued to plot attacks against America.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-14-na-osama14-story.html |title=Bush 'Not Concerned' About Bin Laden in '02 |date=October 14, 2004 |author=Reynolds, Maura |newspaper=] |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>
A change of focus immediately followed the September 11 attacks. Through debate and discussion with his newly created ] on the weekend after September 11, Bush's foreign (and to a lesser degree, domestic) policy was subsequently defined, above all, by the ]. This was first described in a special "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" on ], ] in which Bush announced that the U.S. was fighting a war on terrorism.


The main goals of the war were to defeat the ], drive ] out of Afghanistan, and capture key al-Qaeda leaders. In December 2001, the Pentagon reported that the Taliban had been defeated,<ref name=taliband>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/world/nation-challenged-military-campaign-taliban-defeated-pentagon-asserts-but-war.html |access-date=June 23, 2009 |date=December 11, 2001 |author1=Shanker, Tom |author2=Eric Schmitt |newspaper=The New York Times |title=A Nation Challenged; Military Campaign; Taliban Defeated, Pentagon Asserts, but War Goes On |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/world/nation-challenged-military-campaign-taliban-defeated-pentagon-asserts-but-war.html |url-status=dead}}</ref> but cautioned that the war would go on to continue weakening Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders.<ref name=taliband/> Later that month the UN had installed the ] chaired by ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm |title=Fact Sheet: International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan |publisher=] |date=February 14, 2002 |access-date=September 1, 2008 |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673026.stm |title=More Dutch troops for Afghanistan |work=BBC News |date=February 3, 2006 |access-date=September 1, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673026.stm |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> the U.S. under the Bush administration supported the new government of Karzai by maintaining a high level of troops to establish the authority of his government as well as combat ]. Both Afghanistan and the United States resumed diplomatic ties in late 2001. In 2002, based on ] figures, ] reported that "our invasion of Afghanistan may end up saving one million lives over the next decade" as the result of improved healthcare and greater access to humanitarian aid.<ref>Kristof, Nicholas D., , ''The New York Times'', February 1, 2002. "Now aid is pouring in and lives are being saved on an enormous scale. UNICEF, for example, has vaccinated 734,000 children against measles over the last two months, in a country where virtually no one had been vaccinated against the disease in the previous 10 years. Because measles often led to death in Afghanistan, the vaccination campaign will save at least 35,000 children's lives each year{{nbsp}}... Heidi J. Larson of UNICEF says that if all goes well, child and maternal mortality rates will drop in half in Afghanistan over the next five years. That would mean 112,000 fewer children and 7,500 fewer pregnant women dying each year."</ref>
Once the source of the September 11 attacks was traced to ] and his ] network operating out of ]-ruled ], Bush gave an ultimatum to the Taliban to deliver Osama bin Laden to the United States among a list of other demands. When the Taliban asked to see proof that bin Laden was behind the attacks, the United States refused and instead threatened the Taliban with military action. As an attack became imminent, the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, where he could be tried under Islamic law. On October 7, the U.S. started the military campaign. Then, on ], ] with the help of Afghan ], U.S. troops seized control of the capital city, ], and overthrew the Taliban government. Exiled President ] was returned to office, and was soon followed by a special interim government headed by former Afghani territorial governor ]. The government still has no means to control vast regions of the country. UN forces have helped to secure the area around Kabul and some other places. Osama Bin Laden, however, has not yet been found. Diplomatic relations between Afghanistan and the United States resumed, and Karzai became a close ally of Washington in the continued fight against terrorism.


Efforts to kill or capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden failed as he escaped a ] in December 2001 in the mountainous region of ], which the Bush administration later acknowledged to have resulted from a failure to commit enough U.S. ground troops.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200843.html |title=U.S. Concludes bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight |access-date=September 6, 2015 |date=April 17, 2002 |newspaper=The Washington Post |first1=Barton |last1=Gellman |first2=Thomas E. |last2=Ricks}}</ref> It was not until May 2011, two years after Bush left office, that bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces under the Obama administration. ], Bin laden's second-in-command, took charge of al-Qaeda until he was ] in a targeted drone strike under the Biden administration.
The Bush administration has been criticized for holding several hundred individuals, including an undisclosed number of children, at ] in ], Cuba without ]. The great majority were accused of connections to ] or the Taliban. Several member states of the ] and the ], as well as non-governmental human rights organizations, have argued that the detainees must be treated as ] under the ] and thus protected against indefinite detention as specified in international human rights law. Two federal U.S. appeals courts ruled that the prisoners should have access to lawyers and the U.S. court system. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay. The ] ruled that the prisoners should have access to lawyers and the U.S. court system and that U.S. authorities did not have the power to detain ], a U.S. citizen seized on U.S. soil, as an "enemy combatant". These cases are pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court in ].


Despite the initial success in driving the Taliban from power in Kabul, by early 2003 the Taliban was regrouping, amassing new funds and recruits.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html?related |title=Taliban Appears To Be Regrouped and Well-Funded |access-date=September 1, 2008 |date=May 8, 2003 |work=The Christian Science Monitor |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html?related |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The 2005 failure of ] showed that the Taliban had returned.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-01-09/gates-bombs-away-in-memoir-and-how-the-green-lantern-drove-a-decision/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140109153516/http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-01-09/gates-bombs-away-in-memoir-and-how-the-green-lantern-drove-a-decision/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 9, 2014 |title=Gates: Bombs Away in Memoir{{nbsp}}– How Green Lantern Drove a Decision |last1=Capaccio |first1=Tony |date=January 9, 2014 |publisher=Bloomberg L.P. |access-date=January 9, 2014}}</ref> In 2006, the ] appeared larger, fiercer and better organized than expected, with large-scale allied offensives such as ] attaining limited success.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=285|title=World Cannot Give Up on Afghanistan, Coalition Officials Say|last=Garamone|first=Jim|date=June 28, 2006|publisher=]|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060802215853/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=285|archive-date=August 2, 2006|access-date=September 1, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5107816.stm |title=Frustrated Karzai toughens stance |access-date=September 1, 2008 |date=July 22, 2006 |work=BBC News |first=Alastair |last=Leithead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5107816.stm |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-19-taliban-afghanistan-cover_x.htm |title=Revived Taliban waging 'full-blown insurgency' |access-date=September 1, 2008 |date=July 22, 2006 |newspaper=USA Today |first=Paul |last=Wiseman}}</ref> As a result, in March 2007, the Bush administration deployed another more than 3,500 troops to Afghanistan to expand the fight against the Taliban.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001397.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=May 31, 2008 |last=Baker |first=Peter |date=March 11, 2007 |page=A11 |title=Additional Troop Increase Approved}}</ref>
The governments of allied countries such as Spain, France and Germany, as well as the U.S.-based organization ] criticized the Bush administration's refusal to sign the treaty for the ], thereby refusing that court's jurisdiction for war crimes prosecutions of U.S. nationals. Under the ICC, several U.S. soldiers photographed abusing Iraqi prisoners at the ] prison might be prosecuted in this manner if the U.S. refused to do so. (cf. ] and )


In June 2004, United States Forces began ] during the ] of President Bush, along the ] against ] and ] militants.<ref name="The CIA's Silent War in Pakistan">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1900248,00.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120914063431/http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1900248,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 14, 2012|title=The CIA's Silent War in Pakistan|magazine=] |date=June 1, 2009|access-date=December 16, 2011|first1=Bobby|last1=Ghosh|first2=Mark|last2=Thompson}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-shifts-focus-to-killing-targets/2011/08/30/gIQA7MZGvJ_story.html|title=CIA shifts focus to killing targets|first1=Greg|last1=Miller|first2=Julie|last2=Tate|date=September 1, 2011|access-date=December 10, 2017|via=www.WashingtonPost.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131126132531/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-shifts-focus-to-killing-targets/2011/08/30/gIQA7MZGvJ_story.html|archive-date=November 26, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref>


Major criticisms started to emerge from international human rights organizations about the United States policy of detaining alleged Taliban and Al-Qaeda combatants and refusing to grant these detainees their rights as prisoners of war as detailed in the Geneva Conventions. Other allegations stated that numerous captured Taliban fighters possessed no link to either Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Instead these fighters had the misfortune of being forcibly recruited into the Taliban military during the American invasion. The practice of impressment was systematic of the Taliban regime which would raid villages for able bodied men to serve on the front lines for a specific time period.
President Bush and his administration label the detainees as "]s" deemed to pose a threat to the U.S. or to have information about terrorist structures, plans and tactics. The administration has said that such detainees can be held for "as long as necessary". Critics claim that anyone accused of a crime has a right to a fair trial and question whether people like ], the former ] ambassador to Pakistan, can be called an "unlawful combatant". In the case of Zaeef, they claim he cannot be a "combatant" because he was crippled during the Soviet occupation and that he wasn't "unlawful" because he was ambassador of his country. The Bush Administration and its supporters claim that the war against America by Al-Qaeda is ongoing, that it is unconventional, and that the "battlefield" extends into the U.S. itself.


], March 2006]]
Although the Bush administration released over 100 detainees and authorized military tribunals for the rest, the legal framework governing them has been slow in the making. According to ], as of January 2004, "the public still not know who the detainees are, what they allegedly done, and whether and when they will be charged with crimes or released. There been no hearings to determine the legal status of detainees and no judicial review&#8212;in short, no legal process at all." In February of 2002 the United States began releasing several dozen detainees to their home countries, including many British and Pakistani nationals. The British detainees were briefly investigated and cleared of any British charges within 24 hours of their arrival.


In 2005, the United States and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement committing both nations to a long-term relationship.<ref name=USGov>{{cite web |url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm#relations |title=U.S.-Afghan Relations |publisher=] |access-date=October 13, 2011}}</ref> On March 1, 2006, Bush along with his wife ] made a visit to Afghanistan where they greeted US soldiers, met with Afghan officials and later appeared at a special inauguration ceremony at the U.S. Embassy.<ref>Pajhwok Afghan News, {{dead link|date=October 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}</ref>
The domestic political equation changed in the U.S. after the September 11 attacks, bolstering the influence of the ] faction of the administration and throughout Washington. The conflict in Afghanistan, and the events that had launched the war, coincided with a reassessment of foreign policy by the administration, which President Bush articulated in his first ] on ], ]. Previously, September 11 had underscored the threat of attacks from terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, as opposed to ]s, and U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan targeted the ruling Taliban militia for having harbored al-Qaeda sponsor Osama bin Laden. Now speaking of an "]" comprising ], ], and ] in his address to Congress, Bush claimed that he was preparing to open a new front in the U.S global "war on terrorism". Bush declared, "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." Announcing that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government, he claimed, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." (The full text of Bush's 2002 State of the Union address can be read in BBC News Online at )


The United States under the Bush administration took the leading role in the overall ] by providing billions of dollars to the ], building national roads, government and educational institutions.
{{dablink|For more details, see ].}}

President Bush and his administration labelled the detainees as "]s" deemed to pose a threat to the U.S. or to have information about terrorist structures, plans and tactics. The administration has said that such detainees can be held for "as long as necessary". Critics claim that anyone accused of a crime has a ] and question whether people like ], the former ] ambassador to Pakistan, can be called an "unlawful combatant". In the case of Zaeef, they claim he cannot be a "combatant" because he was crippled during the Soviet occupation and that he wasn't "unlawful" because he was ambassador of his country. The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the war against America by Al-Qaeda is ongoing, that it is unconventional, and that the "battlefield" extends into the U.S. itself.<ref name=HRW20040109>{{cite web |url=https://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm |title=United States: Guantanamo Two Years On |date=January 9, 2004 |publisher=Human Rights Watch |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5QRC5V?OpenDocument |title=Guantanamo Bay: Overview of the ICRC's work for internees |date=January 30, 2004 |publisher=International Committee of the Red Cross |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref> According to the declassified April 2006 ], "United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of Al-Qaeda and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa'ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes Al-Qaeda, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts."

On September 6, 2006, President Bush confirmed, for the first time, that the ] had held "high-value detainees" for interrogation in secret prisons around the world.<ref>{{cite news|first=Don|last=Gonyea|author-link=Don Gonyea|title=Bush Concedes CIA Ran Secret Prisons Abroad|date=September 6, 2006|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5776968|access-date=February 22, 2010}}</ref> He also announced that fourteen ] senior captives, including ], were being transferred from CIA custody, to military custody, at ] and that these fourteen captives could now expect to face charges before Guantanamo military commissions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/washington/06bush_transcript.html|title=President Bush's Speech on Terrorism|work=The New York Times |date=September 6, 2006|access-date=May 24, 2020}}</ref>

Although the Bush administration released over 100 detainees and authorized military tribunals for the rest, the legal framework governing them has been slow in the making. According to ], as of January 2004, "the public still not know who the detainees are, what they allegedly done, and whether and when they will be charged with crimes or released. There been no hearings to determine the legal status of detainees and no judicial review—in short, no legal process at all."<ref name=HRW20040109/> In February 2002 the United States began releasing several dozen detainees to their home countries, including many British and Pakistani nationals. The British detainees were briefly investigated and cleared of any British charges within 24 hours of their arrival.

] and Secretary of State ] as they host a working dinner at the ] with President ] (left) of the ], and President ], of the ], September 27, 2006. White House photo by ].]]

The domestic political equation changed in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001, attacks, bolstering the influence of the ] faction of the administration and throughout Washington. The conflict in Afghanistan, and the events that had launched the war, coincided with a reassessment of foreign policy by the administration, which President Bush articulated in his first ] on January 29, 2002. Previously, September 11 had underscored the threat of attacks from terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, as opposed to ], and U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan targeted the ruling Taliban militia for having harbored al-Qaeda sponsor Osama bin Laden. Now speaking of an "]" comprising ], ], and ] in his address to Congress, Bush claimed that he was preparing to open a new front in the U.S. global "war on terrorism".<ref name=autogenerated4>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1790537.stm |title=Full text: State of the Union address |date=January 30, 2002 |work=BBC News |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>

===Bahrain===
{{Main|Bahrain–United States relations|Bahrain–United States Free Trade Agreement}}
] of Bahrain, November 2004]]

President Bush designated Bahrain a ] in 2002.<ref>{{cite news|title=Bahrain Joins Iran in Opposing Strike|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/bahrain-joins-iran-in-opposing-strike|access-date=July 7, 2012|newspaper=]|date=August 18, 2002|agency=]}}</ref> President Bush signed the ] into law on January 11, 2006.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Reuters|title=Bahrain Pact Signed by Bush|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/politics/12trade.html|work=The New York Times|date=January 12, 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Statement on H.R. 4340, 'U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act' (January 11, 2006)|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060111.html|via=]|work=]|access-date=July 22, 2014}}</ref> The FTA was implemented on August 1, 2006, and will reduce certain barriers of trade between the two countries.<ref>{{cite web|title=Statement of USTR Susan C. Schwab Regarding Entry Into Force of the U.S. -Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (July 2006) |url=http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/archives/2006/july/statement-ustr-susan-c-schwab-regarding-entr |website=Office of the United States Trade Representative |access-date=July 22, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803104934/http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/archives/2006/july/statement-ustr-susan-c-schwab-regarding-entr |archive-date=August 3, 2014}}</ref>

===Egypt===
{{Main|Egypt–United States relations}}
], June 2002]]

President Bush enjoyed relations with Egypt under President ], However, later on Egyptian–American relations have become a little tense. This is due to a great extent to the Egyptian unwillingness to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in peace stabilization missions. Egypt strongly backed the U.S. in its war against international terrorism after the September 11 attacks of 2001 but refused to send troops to Afghanistan during the war and after it. Egypt also opposed U.S. military intervention of March 2003 in Iraq<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.egypt.mubarak.reut/|title=CNN.com – Mubarak warns of '100 bin Ladens' – Mar. 31, 2003|website=www.cnn.com|access-date=June 26, 2017}}</ref> through their membership in the ]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/453|title=African Union summit opposed to war in Iraq|last=O'Brien|first=Fiona|date=February 6, 2003|website=The World Revolution|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040107002835/http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/453|archive-date=January 7, 2004|access-date=June 26, 2017}}</ref> and the ],<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm|title=BBC NEWS {{!}} Middle East {{!}} Arab states line up behind Iraq|website=news.bbc.co.uk|date=March 25, 2003|access-date=June 26, 2017}}</ref> continued to oppose U.S. occupation of the country after the war and further refused to comply with U.S. requests to send troops to the country even under a UN umbrella.

President Mubarak spoke out against the ], arguing that the ] should have been resolved first. He also said the war would cause "100 ]".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.egypt.mubarak.reut/ |title=Mubarak warns of '100 bin Ladens' |date=March 31, 2003 |access-date=January 29, 2011 |publisher=CNN}}</ref> However, as president he did not support an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq because he believed it would probably lead to chaos.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-09-egypt-comments_x.htm |title=Mubarak: "U.S withdrawal would hurt Iraq" |date=April 9, 2006 |work=USA Today |access-date=January 29, 2011}}</ref>

The issue of participation in the post-war construction efforts in Iraq has been controversial in Egypt and in the Arab world as a whole. Opponents say that the war was illegal and it is necessary to wait until Iraq has legal representative government to deal with it. On the other hand, supporters of participation argued that the responsibility to protect Iraqis and to help them in time of crisis should prevail and guide the Egyptian action in ], despite the fact that the Iraqis do not agree.

US officials quoted in '']'' described Egyptian security and military as having shared "valuable intelligence" and providing other "useful counterterrorism assistance", in the 1980, 90s and "particularly in the decade since the 9/11 attacks". Under President Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, the U.S. has had "an important partnership" in counterterrorism.<ref name=Hall>{{cite news|last=Hall|first=Mimi|title=Transition could weaken U.S. anti-terror efforts |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-02-04-terror04_ST_N.htm|access-date=October 10, 2013|newspaper=USA Today|date=February 4, 2011|author2=Richard Wolf}}</ref>

===Iran===
{{Main|Iran–United States relations#2001–2005: George W. Bush administration, first term|Iran–United States relations#2005–2009: George W. Bush administration, second term}}

In his ], Bush labeled ] as a member of the "]", where he stated "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom".<ref name=sotu2002/> Bush also accused Iran of aiding terrorist organizations.<ref name="axis1">{{cite news|title=How Iran Entered the 'Axis'|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/map.html|access-date=November 15, 2017|publisher=PBS|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171120234029/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/map.html|archive-date=November 20, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> In June 2005, Bush issued Executive Order 13382 freezing the assets of individuals connected with Iran's nuclear program.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/whwmdeo.pdf|title=Executive Order 13382—Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters|publisher=www.treasury.gov|date=June 28, 2005|access-date=May 18, 2020}}</ref> In 2006, Iran re-opened three of its nuclear facilities, potentially allowing it to begin the process of building a nuclear bomb.<ref name="weismans">{{cite news|last1=Weisman|first1=Steven|last2=Fathi|first2=Nazila|title=Iranians Reopen Nuclear Centers|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/world/middleeast/iranians-reopen-nuclear-centers.html|access-date=November 15, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 11, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115143304/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/world/middleeast/iranians-reopen-nuclear-centers.html|archive-date=November 15, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> After the resumption of the Iranian nuclear program, many within the U.S. military and foreign policy community speculated that Bush might attempt to impose regime change on Iran.<ref name="shersh1">{{cite magazine|last1=Hersh|first1=Seymour M.|title=The Iran Plans|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/17/the-iran-plans|access-date=November 15, 2017|magazine=The New Yorker|date=April 17, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019090505/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/04/17/the-iran-plans|archive-date=October 19, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> This was evident in the ] legislation bill signed by President Bush on September 30, 2006, that appropriated $10 million and directed the ] to spend that money in support of "pro-democracy groups" opposed to the ]ian ].<ref>{{cite news|title=Santorum challenges Obama, Bush on Iran funding|url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/13/politics/truth-squad-iran/|access-date=July 20, 2015|agency=]|date=November 13, 2011}}</ref> Opponents claimed the bill was a first step towards a ]-led invasion of the country.<ref name="sheehan1">{{Cite web |url=http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/04/con06170.html |title=Sheehan, Cindy. ''Mission Accomplished Day''. April 30, 2006. |access-date=July 4, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514080127/http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/04/con06170.html |archive-date=May 14, 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>] called the act a "steppingstone to war". {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100604043127/http://kucinich.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=42687 |date=June 4, 2010}}</ref> In December 2006, the ] unanimously passed ], which imposed sanctions on Iran in order to curb its nuclear program.<ref name="egootman1">{{cite news|last1=Gootman|first1=Elissa|title=Security Council Approves Sanctions Against Iran Over Nuclear Program|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/world/24nations.html|access-date=November 15, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|date=December 24, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115083202/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/world/24nations.html|archive-date=November 15, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

There has been much ] Iran and its ] in the past few years. The controversy centers on the Iranian ]. Iran officials have stated that they are enriching the uranium to fuel civilian reactors as permitted under the ] and other international agreements, but the processes that Iran has been developing to reprocess and enrich uranium are also critical components for the development of a nuclear weapon.

Since there exists some circumstantial evidence that Iran, classified by the U.S. as a ], may have intentions of pursuing a weapons program, the Iranian nuclear program became a major foreign policy of the United States.<ref name=Iran-evidence>{{cite news
|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020702126.html|access-date=July 4, 2007|title=Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran|newspaper=Washington Post|date=February 8, 2006|author=Linzer, Dafna}}</ref>


===Iraq=== ===Iraq===
{{Main|Iraq–United States relations}}
{{Further|2003 invasion of Iraq|Iraq War}}


Beginning with his ] on January 29, 2002, President Bush began publicly focusing attention on Iraq, which he labeled as part of an "]" allied with terrorists and posing "a grave and growing danger" to U.S. interests through possession of ].<ref name=sotu2002>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html |date=January 29, 2002 |title=President Delivers State of the Union Address |access-date=June 23, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090502151928/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html |via=] |work=] |archive-date=May 2, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Iraq: The War Card |url=http://www.iwatchnews.org/accountability/iraq-war-card |publisher=The Center for Public Integrity |access-date=November 9, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.iwatchnews.org/accountability/iraq-war-card |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Bush declared, "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." Announcing that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government, he claimed, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade."<ref name=autogenerated4 /> and claimed "This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children".<ref name=autogenerated4 /> and that "This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors". and that "This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world".<ref name=autogenerated4 />


In the latter half of 2002, CIA ] contained assertions of ]'s intent of reconstituting nuclear weapons programs, not properly accounting for Iraqi ] and ], and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm |title=Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs |date=October 2002 |publisher=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130911171932/https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 11, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm |title=CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons |publisher=The National Security Archive |date=July 9, 2004 |access-date=June 23, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090623070452/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm |url-status=live |archive-date=June 23, 2009}}</ref> Contentions that the Bush administration manipulated or exaggerated the threat and evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities would eventually become a major point of criticism for the president.<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/67019/the-first-casualty|title=The First Casualty|last1=Ackerman|first1=Spencer|date=June 30, 2003|magazine=]|access-date=November 17, 2019|last2=Judis|first2=John B.|issn=0028-6583}}</ref><ref>Hersh, Seymour M., "The Stovepipe", '']'', October 27, 2003.</ref>
Beginning with the ] signed into law by President Clinton in ], the U.S. government officially called for ] in Iraq. The Republican Party's campaign platform of 2000 called for "full implementation" of the act and removal of Iraqi president ], with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the ]. In November of ], Bush asked Secretary of Defense ] to begin developing a plan for war. By early ] Bush began publicly pressing for regime change, indicating that his government had reason to believe that the Iraqi government had ties to terrorist groups, was developing ] and did not cooperate sufficiently with United Nations weapons inspectors. In January of 2003, Bush was convinced that diplomacy was not working and started notifying allies such as ] that war was imminent. Although no agreement authorizing force could be found with the United Nations Security Council, the war was ultimately launched in ] ], after Bush, in a speech ] effectively had ] on Iraq, along with a declaration of his objectives as ''"assuring national security"'' of the United States, and ''"no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms."''


Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq on September 12, 2002, in his address to the ].<ref>George W. Bush, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902071830/https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html |date=September 2, 2017}} Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly, New York, New York", official transcript, press release, ], September 12, 2002. Retrieved May 24, 2007.</ref>
Saddam Hussein was deposed and went into hiding on ] when ] was captured, and was subsequently located and arrested in December. The occupation would ultimately prove difficult, with many Iraqis and foreigners launching attacks on U.S. forces stationed in the country. Eventually, the U.S. death toll in the post-war occupation surpassed that of the actual war itself. Thousands of civilians were killed during the invasion and by resistance fighters. Nevertheless, Bush remains optimistic, hailing the "victory" and such developments as the signing of the ].


In October 2002, Congress passed a legislation titled the ] signed by President Bush on October 16, 2002.<ref name="ResolutionText"> (])</ref> authorizing the use of the ] against ]'s Iraq government.<ref>{{cite press release|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021102072524/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html|archive-date=November 2, 2002|title=Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq|publisher=The Office of the President of the ]}}</ref>


On November 20, 2002, at a ] in ], ], President Bush and ] ] held a joint news conference, where Bush stated "It's very important for our NATO nations as well as all free nations to work collectively to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms", "However, should he choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him and at that point in time, all our nations will be able choose whether or not they want to participate."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/|title=Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'|date=November 20, 2002|publisher=CNN|access-date=May 21, 2020|archive-date=June 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190609014029/http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/|url-status=dead}}</ref>


In late 2002 and early 2003, Bush urged the United Nations to enforce Iraqi ] mandates, precipitating a ]. In November 2002, Hans Blix and ] led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, but were advised by the U.S. to depart the country four days prior to the U.S. invasion, despite their requests for more time to complete their tasks.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm |agency=] |title=U.S. advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq |work=USA Today |date=March 17, 2003 |access-date=September 1, 2008}}</ref> The U.S. initially sought a ] resolution authorizing the use of military force but dropped the bid for UN approval due to vigorous opposition from several countries.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/chapterVII.htm |title=Enforcement Measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter |access-date=September 1, 2008 |date=February 13, 2003 |work=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/chapterVII.htm |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The Bush administration's claim that the Iraq War was part of the ] had been ] by political analysts.<ref>Williams, Shirley. ""</ref>
Throughout the course of the Iraq war, Bush was often the target of harsh criticism. Both in the U.S. and in the rest of the world there were numerous ] protests, particularly before the war's onset. On ] ] there were estimated to be over 10 million protestors in the streets all over the world - the largest protest in world history , as of that date. See ], and ].
Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, notably from many on the ], who argued that the war broke international law. (Article VI of the ] states that ''"&hellip;all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land&hellip;"'' and that ''"&hellip;all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution&hellip;"'', while Article III states that the judicial power of the US Supreme Court extends to ''"all &hellip; Treaties made''". This makes a violation of international law also a violation of the "supreme Law of The Land" of America, and withholds immunity from government officials, including the president.) See ] and ]. For its part, the U.S. administration soon presented a list of countries called the ] which supported its position. A later aspect of the criticism has been the increasing death toll in Iraq; over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 1124 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the beginning of the war.
In 2004, public assertions by Bush's former ] ] and ] expert ] raised questions as to the credibility of the Bush administration's pre-war claims. Both presented evidence that questioned how focused the Bush administration was on combating ] (operating out of ], not Iraq) before September 11. Specifically, O'Neill presented classified and unclassified documents indicating that planning for a war with Iraq and the subsequent occupation began at the first ] meeting and continued with each meeting. Clarke presented testimony and witnesses concerning how Bush and much of his cabinet tried to find excuses to attack Iraq immediately after September 11, such as associating it with September 11, claiming that ] possessed ], and claiming that Iraq posed an ], which implied that a war against Iraq would be legal by Article 51 of the ]. On ], ], the ] admitted that there was no imminent threat from ] before the ].


In his ] on January 28, 2003, President Bush declared ] was the worst, and "a brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States." In this context, Bush also said, "The ] government has learned that ] recently sought significant quantities of ] from ]".<ref name="stateunion">{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html|first=George W. |last=Bush|work=]|title=President Delivers 'State of the Union'|via=]|date=January 28, 2003}}</ref>
Testimony at the ] (ongoing during March 2004) has included claims of how much of the Bush administration's immediate post-9/11 emphasis on Iraq was appropriate and proportional to the overall picture of terrorism, especially in light of the administration's subsequent decision to pursue military action in Afghanistan first, the fact that organizations accused of 9/11 are in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and that no links have been found between these organizations and Saddam Hussein. The Commission's report is expected to be released before the Presidential election. On ], ], the ]'s ] filed an initial report on its findings, stating that it found "no credible evidence" of a "collaborative relationship" between pre-invasion ] and ] or of Iraqi involvement in the ].


Although no agreement on authorizing force could be found within the ], the war was ultimately launched in March 2003, after Bush, in a speech on March 17, 2003, effectively had set out a declaration of his objectives as ''"assuring national security"'' of the United States, and ''"no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms"''. Bush also issued an ultimatum stating, "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html |title=President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours |date=March 17, 2003 |author=President Bush |publisher=Office of the Press Secretary |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>


]
], March 19, 2003]]


President Bush in his address to the nation from the Oval Office on March 19, 2003, officially announced the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, here he stated "On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense". The military action was dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/oif-history.pdf | title=Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) History Brief | work=U.S. Department of Defense | date=May 8, 2013 | access-date=October 28, 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017025024/https://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/oif-history.pdf | archive-date=October 17, 2015 | url-status=live | df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html|title=President Bush Addresses the Nation|date=March 19, 2003|via=]|work=]|access-date=May 17, 2020}}</ref>
The inability of the U.S. to find ] in Iraq has led to greater domestic criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. Several of the statements that Bush and his administration made leading up to the war in Iraq, especially those involving claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, have been criticized as misleading or inaccurate. Particularly controversial was ] in the 2003 ] that ] had discovered that Iraq was seeking to buy ] from ]. Officials and diplomats disputed the evidence for this claim, especially after a document describing an attempted purchase from ], which was presented to the United Nations Security Council by ], was found to be a forgery. This led to a public embarrassment for ], the director of the ], as well as the ] scandal. Much criticism on these issues has come from political opponents of Bush. The Iraq war was a significant issue in the ] ] ], including the campaigns of ], ], ], and ].


] Lieutenant Ryan Philips, after landing on the USS ''Abraham Lincoln'' prior to his ], May 1, 2003]]
On ], ], Bush joked about the weapons of mass destruction issue at the annual ]. While showing slides of himself searching the ], he joked, "those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere &hellip; nope, no weapons over there &hellip; maybe under here?" Some found it tasteless of him to be joking about the issue. Others defended the joke as being in line with the self-deprecatory sort of humor that has come to be expected of Presidents when they speak at that event.
], November 27, 2003]]


More than 20 nations (most notably the United Kingdom), designated the "]" joined the United States<ref>{{cite news |first=Steve |last=Schifferes |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm |title=US names 'coalition of the willing' |work=BBC News |date=March 18, 2003 |access-date=September 1, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> in invading Iraq. They launched the invasion on March 20, 2003. The Iraqi military was quickly defeated. The capital, ], fell on April 9, 2003, which resulted in the overthrow of ]'s ] regime 24 year rule. On May 1, Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. The initial success of U.S. operations increased his popularity, but the U.S. and allied forces faced a growing insurgency led by sectarian groups; Bush's "]" speech was later criticized as premature.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031006/|title=Mission Not Accomplished|last=Monsivais|first=Pablo M.|date=October 6, 2003|magazine=Time|access-date=June 23, 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031006/|archive-date=February 25, 2008}}</ref> President Bush then appointed ] Presidential Envoy to Iraq on May 9, 2003, and administrator of the ], his appointment declared him subject to the "authority, direction and control" of Secretary of Defense ].<ref name=memoToBremer>{{cite web|url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/CPA_ORHA/Doc_128_CPA_Legal_Instruments.pdf|title=CPA legal instruments|work=]|author=]|date=May 22, 2003|location=]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111126160610/https://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/CPA_ORHA/Doc_128_CPA_Legal_Instruments.pdf|archive-date=November 26, 2011|access-date=February 28, 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref> On December 14, 2003, President Bush announced the capture of ], after U.S. forces captured him in ] and said that Saddam would "face the justice he denied to millions. For the Ba'athist holdouts responsible for the violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031214-3.html|title=President Bush Addresses Nation on the Capture of Saddam Hussein Remarks by the President on the Capture of Saddam Hussein The Cabinet Room|date=December 14, 2003|via=]|work=]|access-date=May 21, 2020}}</ref> From 2004 until 2007, the situation in Iraq deteriorated further, with some observers arguing that there was a full-scale ].<ref>{{cite news |title=Colin Powell says Iraq in a 'civil war' |url=http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/67163:colin-powell-says-iraq-in-a-civil-war |publisher=] |date=November 28, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070211072616/http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/67163%3Acolin-powell-says-iraq-in-a-civil-war |archive-date=February 11, 2007 |access-date=February 17, 2007 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Bush's policies met with criticism, including demands domestically to set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq. The 2006 report of the bipartisan ], led by ], concluded that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating". While Bush admitted there were strategic mistakes made in regards to the stability of Iraq,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article764622.ece |title=Bush: we went to war on faulty intelligence |work=] |location=UK |date=December 14, 2005 |access-date=June 23, 2009 |archive-date=February 11, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070211072616/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article764622.ece |url-status=dead}}</ref> he maintained he would not change the overall Iraq strategy.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/images/20061021_d-0072-515h.html |title=President George W. Bush speaks during a video teleconference with Vice President Dick Cheney, on screen, and military commanders |date=October 21, 2006 |access-date=September 1, 2008 |archive-date=February 11, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070211072616/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/images/20061021_d-0072-515h.html |via=] |work=] |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=October 21, 2006 |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=at9X1Z7oilgY |title=Bush Reviews Iraq War Strategy as Violence Mounts (Update3) |access-date=September 1, 2008 |publisher=Bloomberg L.P. |archive-date=February 11, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070211072616/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=at9X1Z7oilgY |url-status=dead}}</ref> According to ], some 251,000 Iraqis have been killed in the civil war following the U.S.-led invasion, including at least 163,841 civilians as of 2016.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ |title=Iraq Body Count |access-date=September 18, 2016}}</ref>


], July 2006]]
{{dablink|For more details see ] and ].}}


In January 2005, free, democratic elections were held in Iraq for the first time in 50 years.<ref name="iraq votes">{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html |title=Sporadic violence doesn't deter Iraqi voters |publisher=CNN |date=January 31, 2005 |access-date=May 31, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html |archive-date=February 25, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Iraqi National Security Advisor ], "This is the greatest day in the history of this country."<ref name="iraq votes"/> Bush praised the event as well, saying that the Iraqis "have taken rightful control of their country's destiny".<ref name="iraq votes"/> This led to the election of ] as president and ] as Prime Minister of Iraq. A referendum to approve a constitution in Iraq was held in October 2005, supported by most ] and many ].<ref>{{cite news |publisher=Fox News Channel |url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/iraq-constitution-passes-in-referendum |title=Iraq Constitution Passes in Referendum |date=October 25, 2005 |access-date=May 31, 2008 |agency=Associated Press |archive-date=August 18, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060818114650/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C173349%2C00.html |url-status=live}}</ref>
===Palestinian/Israeli conflict===
], ] President George W. Bush, and ]i Prime Minister ] after reading statement to the press during the closing moments of the Red Sea Summit in ], ], ], ]]]
Bush has maintained a desire to resume the peace process in ], and openly proclaimed his desire for a ] state to be created before ]. He outlined a ] in cooperation with ], the ], and the ], which featured compromises that had to be made by both sides before Palestinian statehood could become a reality.


In June 2006, President Bush announced the death of ], the leader of ], after U.S. forces killed him in an airstrike and stated that through his every action Zarqawi sought to defeat America and its coalition partners by turning Iraq into a safe haven for al-Qaeda. Bush also stated, "Now Zarqawi has met his end and this violent man will never murder again."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/67696.htm |title=Remarks by President Bush: Justice Delivered to the Most Wanted Terrorist in Iraq |publisher=2001-2009.state.gov|date=June 8, 2006|access-date=May 21, 2020}}</ref>
One particular proposal was his insistence on new Palestinian leadership; a stance that saw the appointment of the first ever Palestinian ] on ], ]. The roadmap for peace stalled within months after more violence and the resignation of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, ].


On January 10, 2007, Bush announced a ], as well as a job program for Iraqis, more reconstruction proposals, and $1.2{{nbsp}}billion (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|1.2|2007|r=1}}{{nbsp}}billion in {{Inflation-year|US}}) for these programs.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16558652 |title=Admitting strategy error, Bush adds Iraq troops |work=] |date=January 11, 2007}}</ref> On January 23, 2007, in the ], Bush announced "deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2007.htm|title=George W. Bush Sixth Presidential State of the Union Address delivered 23 January 2007|publisher=www.americanrhetoric.com|access-date=May 20, 2020}}</ref> On May 1, 2007, Bush used his second-ever veto to reject a bill setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops,<ref>{{cite news |first1=Sheryl Gay |last1=Stolberg |author2=Zeleny, Jeff |title=Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit |newspaper=The New York Times |date=May 1, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/washington/02policy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060818114650/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/washington/02policy.html |archive-date=August 18, 2006 |url-status=dead}}</ref> saying the debate over the conflict was "understandable" but insisting that a continued U.S. presence there was crucial.<ref>{{cite news |publisher=CNN |date=March 19, 2008 |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/bush.iraq/index.html |title=Bush on anniversary: War in Iraq must go on}}</ref>
By the end of 2003, neither side had done what was outlined in the plan. In April 2004 Bush announced that he endorsed Israeli Prime Minister ]'s plan to disengage from the ] but retain Jewish settlements in the ]. He also announced agreement with Sharon's policy of denying the ]. This led to condemnation from Palestinian President ], Arab and European governments and was a major departure from previous U.S. foreign policy in the region. Egyptian President ] commented Bush's policies had led to an 'unprecedented hatred' of Arabs for the U.S.


]
===Criticism from Former Diplomats and Military Commanders===
] in Iraq, September 2007]]
Bush's foreign policy has been criticized by ], a bipartisan group of former ambassadors, foreign policy experts, and four-star generals. In a brief statement signed by 27 members, DMCP stated that:
] in Baghdad, December 2008]]


In March 2008, Bush praised the Iraqi government's "bold decision" to launch the ] against the ], calling it "a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/28/iraq.main/index.html |title=Baghdad on lockdown as rockets, bombs fly |publisher=CNN |date=March 28, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060818114650/http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/28/iraq.main/index.html |archive-date=August 18, 2006 |url-status=dead}}</ref> He said he would carefully weigh recommendations from his commanding General ] and Ambassador ] about how to proceed after the end of the military buildup in the summer of 2008. He also praised the Iraqis' legislative achievements, including a pension law, a revised de-Baathification law, a new budget, an amnesty law, and a provincial powers measure that, he said, set the stage for the ].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/27/bush.iraq/index.html |title=Bush: Baghdad's move against Shiite militias a 'bold decision' |publisher=CNN |date=March 27, 2008 |archive-date=August 18, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060818114650/http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/27/bush.iraq/index.html |url-status=dead}}</ref> By July 2008, American troop deaths had reached their lowest number since the war began,<ref name="cuts-nyt">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html |title=Citing Stability in Iraq, Bush Sees Troop Cuts |date=August 1, 2008 |access-date=August 3, 2008 |newspaper=The New York Times |author1=Myers, Steven Lee |author2=Sabrina Tavernise |archive-date=August 18, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060818114650/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html |url-status=dead}}</ref> and due to increased stability in Iraq, Bush announced the withdrawal of additional American forces.<ref name="cuts-nyt"/> During his last visit in Iraq in December 2008, Iraqi journalist ] ] amid official press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister ].<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120530150415/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783325.stm |date=May 30, 2012}}, BBC, December 16, 2008.</ref> Al-Zaidi yelled the strikes on Bush as "farewell kiss" and "for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq."<ref>{{cite news|title = Shoes thrown at Bush on Iraq trip|work = BBC News|date = December 14, 2008|url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7782422.stm|access-date = December 15, 2008|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081215055005/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7782422.stm|archive-date = December 15, 2008|url-status = live|df = dmy-all}}</ref>
:''From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America&#8217;s role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. Instead of building upon America&#8217;s great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own&hellip. The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change.''


In March 2010, ] released a report that President Bush's administration had made more than 900 false pretenses in a two-year period about alleged threat of Iraq against the United States, as his rationale to engage war in Iraq.<ref> . Retrieved on March 22, 2010</ref> Senior war crimes prosecutor ] has suggested that Bush should be tried in the ] for '269 war crime charges' related to the ].<ref>Glantz, A.: " {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130401072801/http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/ |date=April 1, 2013}}", OneWorld U.S., August 25, 2006. URL last accessed December 12, 2006.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Haas |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Haas (political scientist)|year=2008 |title=George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=978-0-313-36499-0}}
==Domestic security==
</ref>
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration proposed and Congress approved, a series of laws stated to be necessary in prosecuting the "]". These included a wide variety of surveillance programs, some of which came under heavy fire from civil liberties interest groups that criticized the new regulations for infringing upon certain civil liberties. The administration has also been criticized for refusing to back various security measures relating to port security in 2003 and 2004 and vetoing all US$39 million for the 2002 ].


] at the ] in ], ], June 13, 2006. During his unannounced trip to Iraq, President Bush thanked the Prime Minister, telling him, "I'm convinced you will succeed, and so will the world."]]


Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, notably from many on the ], who argued that the war broke international law.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ |title=International Law: War in Iraq |author=Rachel S. Taylor |publisher=World Press |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref> (Article VI of the ] states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" and that "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution", while Article III states that the judicial power of the US Supreme Court extends to "all{{nbsp}}... Treaties made". This makes a violation of international law also a violation of the "supreme Law of The Land" of America, and withholds immunity from government officials, including the president.) See ] and ]. For its part, the U.S. administration soon presented a list of countries called the ] which supported its position. A later aspect of the criticism has been the death toll in Iraq; over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 4000 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the beginning of the war mainly during the ensuing ] and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org|title=Iraq Body Count|work=iraqbodycount.org}}</ref><ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110321080348/http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx |date=March 21, 2011}} iCasualties</ref> In 2004, public assertions by Bush's former ] ] and ] expert ] raised questions about the credibility of the Bush administration's pre-war claims. Both presented evidence that questioned how focused the Bush administration was on combating ] (which was operating out of ], not Iraq) before September 11. Specifically, O'Neill presented classified and unclassified documents indicating that planning for a war with Iraq and the subsequent occupation began at the first ] meeting and continued with each meeting. Clarke presented testimony and witnesses concerning how Bush and much of his cabinet tried to find excuses to attack Iraq immediately after September 11, such as associating it with September 11, claiming that ] possessed ], and claiming that Iraq posed an ], which implied that a war against Iraq would be legal by Article 51<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm|title=Charter of the United Nations: CHAPTER VII|publisher=]|access-date=July 4, 2007|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070710225549/http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm |archive-date = July 10, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref> of the ].
===Bush security initiatives===
* Through an act of Congress, the creation of a ] (DHS), a ]-level agency designed to streamline and co-ordinate the various agents of federal government bureaucracy charged with protecting domestic soil from terrorist attacks. (The White House had opposed the creation of this department for several months.)
*A ] (TIA) program was proposed by the ]. The TIA program did not receive funding from Congress, however, and is not currently operating. (Reports of similar program surfacing)
*The ] which greatly expands the government's powers of surveillance and arrest. The act passed soon after September 11, 2001.
*Creation of the ] which will review government acts of domestic ].
*"]", which distributes "watch lists" of people alleged to be suspicious, or have ties to terrorist groups to a variety of different organizations and institutions. These included specific ] of U.S. residents who should not be allowed to board any aircraft into or out of the United States.
*"]", which would encouraged people who have access to U.S. homes, like plumbers, to report suspicious activity. This proposal was rejected after an initial outcry.
*The ], an intelligence document describing covert operations abroad to defuse terrorist threats to U.S. interests.
*"]", which provides a strategic framework for intervening in countries to move them into the "functioning core" of world societies and out of the "non-integrating gap" from which national security threats arise.
*"]", a program that was intended to help better predict major global political events. The idea was almost immediately retracted.


Testimony at the ] (ongoing during March 2004) has included claims of how much of the Bush administration's immediate post-9/11 emphasis on Iraq was appropriate and proportional to the overall picture of terrorism, especially in light of the administration's subsequent decision to pursue military action in Afghanistan first, the fact that organizations accused of 9/11 are in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and that no links have been found between these organizations and Saddam Hussein. The commission's report is expected to be released before the presidential election. On June 16, 2004, the USA's ] filed an initial report on its findings, stating that it found "no credible evidence" of a "collaborative relationship" between pre-invasion ] or of Iraqi involvement in the ].
Some accused the Bush administration of using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to clamp down on political dissent; many of Bush's critics were quick to allege that they were being unfairly targeted by the new security measures. Defenders of the president's security policies have said that the continual criticism of his policies in both print and visual media shows there is no such crackdown.


The inability of the U.S. to find ] in Iraq has led to greater domestic criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. Several of the statements that Bush and his administration made leading up to the war in Iraq, especially those involving claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, have been criticized as misleading or inaccurate. Particularly controversial was ] in the ] that ] had discovered that Iraq was seeking to buy ] from Africa. Officials and diplomats disputed the evidence for this claim, especially after a document describing an attempted purchase from ], which was presented to the United Nations Security Council by ], was found to be a forgery. This led to a public embarrassment for ], the director of the CIA, as well as the ] scandal. Much criticism on these issues has come from political opponents of Bush. The Iraq war was a significant issue in the 2004 ] ], including the campaigns of ], ], ], and ].
Others accused the administration of over-reacting to the threat of terrorism, and participating in ] style tactics with little justification. Critics of that view say that the prior administration under-reacted to the ] on ], ], treating it as a criminal matter rather than an act of war.


However, State Department documents declassified in 2006 cite hundreds of ] found in Iraq. Nonetheless, it was soon quickly revealed that the particular weapons in question were WMD Saddam had obtained during the Iran-Iraq war, which had long since become stale and non-functional<ref name=ReportWMD>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html|title=Report: Hundreds of WMD Found in Iraq|publisher=]|date=June 22, 2006|access-date=July 4, 2007}}</ref>
Currently, a major controversy in the ] is the debate over whether or not to expand the USA PATRIOT Act into a new Act known as USA PATRIOT Act II (and whether or not to repeal some or all of the PATRIOT Act itself). This proposal would increase government surveillance on people in the United States suspected of terrorist activities and reduce judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize ]s, and give the Justice Department the authority to revoke U.S. citizenship of anyone who belonged to an organization that the government deemed subversive.


On March 24, 2004, Bush joked about the weapons of mass destruction issue at the annual ]. While showing slides of himself searching the ], he joked, "those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere{{nbsp}}... nope, no weapons over there{{nbsp}}... maybe under here?" Some found it tasteless of him to be joking about the issue. Others defended the joke as being in line with the self-deprecatory sort of humor that has come to be expected of presidents when they speak at that event.
Supporters of the law cite the potentials of large-scale terrorism as justification for Americans to shift their priorities more from civil liberties to security. Additionally, they point out that against earlier predictions, nearly two years have passed without a single terrorist act in the United States. Opponents allege that the new law enforcement powers have resulted in arrests of people who have not been publicly charged with anything, in violation of the ] and basic ].


On September 26, 2006, Bush declassified the key judgments of the April 2006 ]. The estimate, titled '''', states the following: "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
In any event, the debate over the proper role of government in people's lives will continue. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower Federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of the new laws.


On December 1, 2008, during an interview with ], Bush stated "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in ]. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the ] is a reason to remove ]". "I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack'{{nbsp}}... I didn't anticipate war." and on early withdrawal of troops, "It was a tough call, particularly, since a lot of people were advising for me to get out of Iraq, or pull back in Iraq".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN01511412|title=Bush calls flawed Iraq intelligence biggest regret|work=]|access-date=December 1, 2008 | first=Tabassum | last=Zakaria | date=December 1, 2008}}</ref>
==International Criminal Court==
The came into being on July 1, 2002. The ] (ICC) is the first ever permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished. George W.Bush made the following comment: "I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It´s a body based in Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecution can pull our troops or diplomats for trial." (First Presidential Debate)


On December 14, 2008, during a ] with Iraqi Prime Minister ], Bush was ] when an Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at the President as Bush and al-Maliki were about to shake hands. The offender, later identified as television correspondent ],<ref name="AP">{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTki_d652tvHLYQvaRlelGq64GoQD952T2IG0|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216064734/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTki_d652tvHLYQvaRlelGq64GoQD952T2IG0|url-status=dead|archive-date=December 16, 2008|title= Bush Notebook: Bush ducks shoes in Baghdad|publisher=The ] |access-date=December 15, 2008}}</ref> leapt from his chair and quickly hurled first one shoe and then the other at the president, who was about 20 feet away. Bush successfully dodged both projectiles which were aimed at his head. Zeidi worked for ] television, an Iraqi-owned station based in ].<ref name="AP"/> He was wrestled to the ground by security officials and then hauled away, moaning as they left the room. "So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?" Bush said, comparing the action to political protests in the United States.<ref name="AP"/> Al-Baghdadia's Baghdad manager told the ] he had no idea what prompted his reporter to go on the attack.<ref name="AP"/> The Iraqi government has demanded an on-air apology from his employer.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7783608.stm|title= Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker|work=] |access-date=December 15, 2008 | date=December 15, 2008}}</ref>
==International Trade==
Bush supports free trade policies and legislation but has resorted to protectionist policies on occasion. ] on imported ] imposed by the White House in March 2002 were lifted after the ] ruled them illegal. Bush explained that the ]s had "achieved their purpose", and "as a result of changed economic circumstances", it was time to lift them.


===Israel===
On ], ], WTO arbitrators authorized the ] and other leading U.S. trade partners to impose ]s against the United States for violation of global trade laws. The decision by the WTO is the latest example of several recent cases where Washington has been found to be in breach of international trade rules. One item strong withstanding is the Bush Administration's opposition towards any softening of the ].
{{Main|Israel–United States relations#George W. Bush administration (2001–2009)}}
], President Bush, and ]i Prime Minister ] after reading statement to the press during the closing moments of the Red Sea Summit in ], ], June 4, 2003]]
], May 2006]]


President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister ] established good relations in their March and June 2001 meetings. On October 4, 2001, shortly after the ], Sharon accused the Bush administration of appeasing the Palestinians at Israel's expense in a bid for Arab support for the US anti-terror campaign. The White House said that the remark was unacceptable. Rather than apologize for the remark, Sharon said that the United States failed to understand him. Also, the United States criticized the Israeli practice of ] Palestinians believed to be engaged in terrorism, which appeared to some Israelis to be inconsistent with the US policy of pursuing ] "dead or alive".


In 2003, in the middle of the ] and a sharp economic downturn in Israel, the US provided Israel with $9 billion in conditional loan guarantees made available through 2011 and negotiated each year at the US–Israel Joint Economic Development Group.
==Defense spending==


President Bush noted in an April 14, 2002, Memorandum which came to be called "the Bush ]" (and which established the parameters for subsequent Israel-Palestinian negotiations) the need to take into account changed "realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers", as well as Israel's security concerns, asserting that "It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be full and complete return to the ] lines of 1949."<ref>], ''Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Arab-Israeli Conflict'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013)', pp. 105ff.</ref> He later emphasized that, within these parameters, details of the borders were subjects for negotiations between the parties.
Of the US$2.4 ] budgeted for 2005, about US$450 ] are planned to be spent on defense. This level is generally comparable to the defense spending during the ]. Congress approved US$87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in November, and had approved an earlier US$79 billion package last spring. Most of those funds were for U.S. military operations in the two countries.


Bush had maintained a desire to resume the peace process in ], and had openly proclaimed his desire for a ] to be created before 2005. He outlined a ] in cooperation with Russia, the ], and the ], which featured compromises that had to be made by both sides before Palestinian statehood could become a reality.
The ratio of defense spending of the U.S. and its allies to its potential adversaries, for the year 2000, is about 6 to 1.


One particular proposal was his insistence on new Palestinian leadership; a stance that saw the appointment of the first ever ] on April 29, 2003. Bush had denounced ] leader ] for continued support of violence and militant groups. The road map for peace stalled within months after more violence and the resignation of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, ].{{citation needed|date=August 2011}}
==Foreign aid==

By the end of 2003, neither side had done what was outlined in the plan. In April 2004 Bush announced that he endorsed Israeli Prime Minister ]'s plan to disengage from the ] but retain Jewish settlements in the ]. He also announced agreement with Sharon's policy of denying the ]. This led to condemnation from Palestinian President ], Arab and European governments<ref>{{cite news |url=http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1195710,00.html |title=Blair condemns Israel and opens rift with US |date= April 20, 2004 |author=Ewen MacAskill, Patrick Wintour |work=The Guardian |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref> and was a major departure from previous U.S. foreign policy in the region. Egyptian President ] commented Bush's policies had led to an 'unprecedented hatred' of Arabs for the U.S.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/international/story/0,3604,1197102,00.html |title=Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US |date=April 21, 2004 |author=Ewen MacAskill, Suzanne Goldenberg |work=The Guardian |access-date=September 16, 2012}}</ref>

During the ], On July 14, 2006, the US Congress was notified of a potential sale of $210 million worth of jet fuel to Israel. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency noted that the sale of the JP-8 fuel, should it be completed, will "enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory", and that "The jet fuel will be consumed while the aircraft is in use to keep peace and security in the region".<ref>{{cite web|title=Defense Security Cooperation Agency news release |date=July 14, 2006 |quote=Transmittal No. 06-40 |url=http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2006/Israel_06-40.pdf |publisher=Dsca.mil |access-date=November 8, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327050219/http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2006/Israel_06-40.pdf |archive-date=March 27, 2009}}</ref> It was reported on July 24 that the United States was in the process of providing Israel with "]" bombs, which would allegedly be used to target the leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah guerilla group and destroy its trenches.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060808023724/http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24887074.htm |date=August 8, 2006 }}, ], July 24, 2006</ref>

American media also questioned whether Israel violated an agreement not to use cluster bombs on civilian targets. Although many of the cluster bombs used were advanced M-85 munitions developed by ], Israel also used older munitions purchased from the US. Evidence during the conflict, hitting civilian areas, although the civilian population had mostly fled. Israel asserts that civilian damage was unavoidable, as Hezbollah ensconced itself in highly populated areas. Simultaneously, indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket fire turned many of its northern towns into virtual ghost towns, in violation of international law. Many bomblets remained undetonated after the war, causing hazard for Lebanese civilians. Israel said that it had not violated any international law because cluster bombs are not illegal and were used only on military targets.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5286352.stm |title=US probes Israel cluster bomb use|access-date=August 29, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060829211915/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5286352.stm |archive-date=August 29, 2006}}</ref>

On July 15, 2006, the United Nations Security Council again rejected pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The Israeli newspaper ''Haaretz'' reported that the US was the only member of out the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all.<ref name="DN 2006-07-17">{{cite news|url=http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/17/1423239 |publisher=Democracy Now! |title=Headlines for July 17, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060802090436/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F07%2F17%2F1423239 |archive-date= August 2, 2006}}</ref>

On July 19, 2006, the Bush administration rejected calls for an immediate ceasefire.<ref name="2006-07-19">{{cite news|url=http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/1345246 |publisher=Democracy Now! |title=Headlines for July 19, 2006 |date=July 19, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060802091511/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F07%2F19%2F1345246 |archive-date= August 2, 2006}}</ref> Secretary of State ] said that certain conditions had to be met, not specifying what they were. ], US Ambassador to the United Nations, rejected the call for a ceasefire, on the grounds that such an action addressed the conflict only superficially: "The notion that you just declare a ceasefire and act as if that is going to solve the problem, I think is simplistic."<ref name="DN 2006-07-20">{{cite news|url=http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/20/1434244 |publisher=Democracy Now! |title=Headlines for July 20, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060802092136/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F07%2F20%2F1434244 |archive-date= August 2, 2006}}</ref>

On July 26, 2006, foreign ministers from the US, Europe, and the Middle East that met in Rome vowed "to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a ceasefire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities". However, the US maintained strong support for the Israeli campaign, and the conference's results were reported to have fallen short of Arab and European leaders' expectations.<ref>{{cite news|title=Rome talks yield no plan to end Lebanon fighting |date=July 26, 2006 |work=Reuters |url=http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-26T185440Z_01_L26848349_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-MEETING.xml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060710034338/http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews |archive-date=July 10, 2006}}</ref>

After the ] ended, President Bush said that Hezbollah was responsible for starting the war, and that the group suffered a defeat at the hands of Israel.<ref name=bushspeech>{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060814-3.html|title=President Discusses Foreign Policy During Visit to State Department|date=August 14, 2006|via=]|work=]|access-date=July 13, 2008}}</ref> He dismissed claims of victory by Hezbollah leaders, asking: "how can you claim victory when at one time you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese Army and an international force?"<ref name=bushspeech /> In his 2010 memoir, '']'', Bush wrote that Israel had weakened Hezbollah and secured its northern border, but that Israel's "shaky military performance" cost it international credibility. He also said that Israel "mishandled its opportunity", and that some of the sites it attacked were of "questionable military value".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=194538|title=Abbas was ready to back Olmert deal, Bush memoir says|author=Hilary Leila Krieger|work=The Jerusalem Post|date=November 9, 2010|access-date=November 9, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101110230454/http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=194538|archive-date=November 10, 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In September 2008, '']'' reported that the U.S. vetoed Israeli Prime Minister ]'s plan to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities the previous May.<ref>{{cite web|last=Steele|first=Jonathan|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1|title=Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran|work=]|date=September 25, 2008|access-date=June 21, 2017}}</ref>

===Jordan===
{{Main|Jordan–United States relations|Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement}}
], September 2001]]

On September 28, 2001, President Bush signed the ] and it was the first ] (FTA) the United States signed with an Arab country (and the fourth FTA overall behind ], ], and ]).<ref name="bessma">{{cite journal|last=Momani |first=Bessma |title=A Middle East Free Trade Area: Economic Interdependence and Peace Considered |journal=The World Economy |date=November 2007 |volume=30 |issue=11 |pages=1682–1700 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01036.x |s2cid=155053491 |url=http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~bmomani/WE-%20MEFTA.pdf |access-date=June 12, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120311234338/http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~bmomani/WE-%20MEFTA.pdf |archive-date=March 11, 2012}}</ref> However, ] advised Washington against the ], but later allegedly gave the invading coalition some degree of covert and tacit support, despite the overwhelming opinion of his own public.<ref>Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch ''The Iraq Causes and Consequences War'' (US, Colorado: ]:2006, p. 143)</ref> The Jordanian government publicly opposed the war against Iraq. The King stressed to the United States and European Union that a diplomatic solution, in accordance with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions ] (1999) and ] (2002), was the only appropriate model for resolving the conflict between Iraq and the UN.<ref>Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch ''The Iraq Causes and Consequences War'' (US, Colorado: ]:2006, p. 144)</ref> In August 2002 he told the Washington Post that an attempt to invade Iraq would be a "tremendous mistake" and that it could "throw the whole area into turmoil".<ref>G. Kessler and P. Slevin, "Abdullah: Foreign Oppose Attack; Jordanian King to Urge Bush to Focus on Peace in Mideast, Not Invasion of Iraq", ''The Washington Post'', August 1, 2002</ref>

===Kuwait===
{{Main|Kuwait–United States relations}}

Kuwait was the only major regional ally that supported the U.S.-led ], because Kuwait had hostility towards Saddam's Iraq stemmed from the events surrounding the first Persian ]. The public appeared to consider Saddam to be as much of a threat in 2003 as he was in the past, and were particularly interested in attempts to repatriate many Kuwaiti citizens who had disappeared during the Gulf War, and were presumably languishing in Iraqi jails up until Saddam's fall from power.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24537-2003Jan21.html |newspaper=] |access-date=August 29, 2017 }}</ref> Kuwait also allowed the U.S. to launch the ] from the U.S. military bases stationed in Kuwait.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030306123221/http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html|url-status=live|archive-date=March 6, 2003|title=U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait 'Ready to conduct an operation'|publisher=CNN|date=February 18, 2003|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref> However, Kuwait did not deploy forces to the ]. In 2004, President Bush designated Kuwait as a ]<ref>{{cite news|title=US tightens military relationship with Kuwait|url=http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/APAB/lib00581,1006A9E4C0DAF1EC.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130129174958/http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/APAB/lib00581,1006A9E4C0DAF1EC.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 29, 2013|access-date=July 7, 2012|date=January 15, 2004|agency=]}}{{subscription required}}</ref>

===Lebanon===
{{Main|Lebanon–United States relations}}

President Bush stated Lebanon "can serve as a great example (to other countries) of what is possible" in the Middle East".<ref name="auto">{{cite web|url=https://editorials.voa.gov/a/a-41-2006-04-20-voa3-83106407/1479667.html|title=Bush On U.S. – Lebanon Relations|publisher=Voice of America|date=April 19, 2006|access-date=May 25, 2020}} {{PD-notice}}</ref>

In April 2006, following a meeting at the White House with Lebanese Prime Minister ], Mr. Bush said that the United States "strongly supports a free and independent and sovereign Lebanon".<ref name="auto"/> He recalled the 2005 ], in which hundreds of thousands of Lebanese protested against and forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from their country.<ref name="auto"/>

Prime Minister Siniora stated "We took great joy in seeing the Cedar Revolution. We understand that the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the street to express their desire to be free required courage, and we support the desire of the people to have a government responsive to their needs and a government that is free, truly free."<ref name="auto"/>

President Bush recalled Lebanon's "great tradition" of serving "as a model of entrepreneurship and prosperity".<ref name="auto"/> He also called for a full investigation into the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister ], which helped spur the Cedar Revolution.<ref name="auto"/>

Prime Minister Siniora said the United States "has been of great support" to Lebanon, which has gone through "major changes" in the past year-and-a-half"<ref name="auto"/> and that "Lebanon has really been committing itself that we want the change to happen to in a democratic and a peaceful manner, but at the same time, to really stay course on course; that we are there to meet the expectations of the people to have a united, liberal, free country, and, at the same time, prosperous economy.{{nbsp}}... The United States has been of great support to Lebanon. I am really convinced that President Bush and the United States will stand beside Lebanon to have Lebanon stay as a free, democratic, united, and sovereign state."<ref name="auto"/>

"Out of the tough times has been through", said President Bush, "will rise a state that shows that it's possible for people of religious difference to live side-by-side in peace; to show that it's possible for people to put aside past histories to live together in.{{nbsp}}... peace and hope and opportunity."<ref name="auto"/>

===Libya===
{{Main|Libya–United States relations}}

After its public announcement on December 19, 2003, Libya announced its intention to rid itself of WMD and MTCR-class missile programs. the Gaddafi government cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the ], and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.<ref name="auto5">{{cite web|url=https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/forrel-us.htm|title=U.S.-Libyan Relations|publisher=www.globalsecurity.org|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

In recognition of these actions, the U.S. under the Bush administration began the process of normalizing relations with Libya. The U.S. terminated the applicability of the ] to Libya and President Bush signed an Executive Order on September 20, 2004, terminating the national emergency with respect to Libya and ending IEEPA-based economic sanctions. This action had the effect of unblocking assets blocked under the Executive Order sanctions. Restrictions on cargo aviation and third-party code-sharing have been lifted, as have restrictions on passenger aviation. Certain export controls remain in place.<ref name="auto5"/>

U.S. diplomatic personnel reopened the U.S. Interest Section in Tripoli on February 8, 2004. In the same month, the U.S. State Department lifted the 23-year travel ban on Libya. The U.S. Interest Section was upgraded to a U.S. Liaison Office on June 28, 2004, and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006. The establishment in 2005 of an American School in Tripoli demonstrates the increased presence of Americans in Libya, and the continuing normalization of bilateral relations. Libya re-established its diplomatic presence in Washington with the opening of an Interest Section on July 8, 2004, which was subsequently upgraded to a Liaison Office in December 2004 and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006.<ref name="auto5"/>

On May 15, 2006, the ] announced its intention to rescind Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in recognition of the fact that Libya had met the statutory requirements for such a move: it had not provided any support for acts of international terrorism in the preceding six-month period, and had provided assurances that it would not do so in the future.{{citation needed|date=July 2015}} On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.<ref name = "Schwartz 2007">{{Cite journal | last = Schwartz | first = Jonathan B. | year = 2007 | title = Dealing with a 'Rogue State': The Libya Precedent | journal = ] | volume = 101 | number = 3 | pages = 553–580 | doi = 10.1017/S0002930000029791 | jstor = 4492935 | s2cid = 141633095}} See p.{{nbsp}}553.</ref> In July 2007, Mr. Gene Cretz was nominated by President Bush as ambassador to Libya. The Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate held Cretz's confirmation hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2008. The Libyan government satisfied its responsibility and paid the remaining amount of money it owed (total of $1.5 billion) to the victims of several acts of terrorism on Friday, October 31, 2008. That same year, the United States and Libya also signed a bilateral Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation.<ref name="auto4">{{cite journal|last=Dolan|first=Bridget M.|title=Science and Technology Agreements as Tools for Science Diplomacy|journal=Science & Diplomacy|date=December 10, 2012|volume=1|issue=4|url=http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/science-and-technology-agreements-tools-for-science-diplomacy}}</ref>

===Morocco===
{{Main|Morocco–United States relations|Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement}}
], April 2002]]

In the 21st century, both countries have become close allies in the global "war on terror". Morocco was among the first Arab and Islamic states to denounce the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States and declare solidarity with the American people in fighting terrorism.<ref name="StateNotes1"> Accessed March 29, 2010.</ref> After the ], Morocco has been instrumental in supporting the United States. For example, King Mohammed VI presided over a mass service in support of the victims of the September 11 attacks. Additionally, security cooperation between the two countries is well developed. King Mohammed VI collaborates with U.S. intelligence and security officials in providing intelligence and preventing ]. In January 2004, during the Bush administration, Morocco was designated a ] as a reward for its collaboration.<ref>{{cite news|title=US rewards Morocco for terror aid|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3776413.stm|access-date=July 7, 2012|newspaper=]|date=June 4, 2004}}</ref> Morocco remains one of America's oldest and closest allies, a status affirmed by Morocco's zero-tolerance policy towards ] and their affiliated groups. Morocco also assisted the U.S. ] with questioning al-Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere

Morocco also plays a pivotal role in the ] to contain ] groups in the Saharan and in the Sahel regions of West Africa.<ref name="Rosenblum, Jennifer 2008, p. 340">Rosenblum, Jennifer & Zartman, William. "The Far West of the Near East" in ''The Foreign Policies of Arab States'', Korany & Dessouki eds. New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2008, p. 340</ref> Likewise, when ] was the victim of ] on May 16, 2003, the U.S. government offered Morocco the full resources of its military and intelligence community.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.moroccanamericantrade.com/relations.cfm |title=Morocco - U.S. Relations |access-date=October 26, 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051026151806/http://www.moroccanamericantrade.com/relations.cfm |archive-date=October 26, 2005 }}</ref> Furthermore, the ] has utilized Morocco as a source for recruiting ]-speaking ].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122253014 |last=Whitelaw |first=Kevin |title=Risky Business: U.S. Must Rely on Foreign Spies |work=National Public Radio |date=January 5, 2010 |access-date=January 11, 2010 }}</ref>

The United States and Morocco signed a ] (FTA) on June 15, 2004, which went into effect on January 1, 2006.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/morocco-fta|title=Morocco Free Trade Agreement |website=] |language=en|access-date=November 19, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/morocco-fta/final-text|title=Final Text {{!}} United States Trade Representative|website=ustr.gov|language=en|access-date=November 19, 2018}}</ref> The Kingdom of Morocco submitted an official statement on the matter for a U.S. House of Representatives congressional hearing in June 2007. It read, in part, "Morocco is pleased to see that the United States has over the last several years very substantially increased its engagement in the Maghreb. Morocco is a longtime partner of the United States and our experience with your great nation over the last two centuries has persuaded us that there is much that we can accomplish together. The FTA between Morocco and USA is a great opportunity for US companies to increase their market shares".<ref>. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213215438/http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35873.pdf |date=December 13, 2012}} Serial No. 110-76, June 6, 2007, p. 23. Accessed March 21, 2010</ref> The FTA also stipulates broad labor protections for both countries, with a dual focus on transparency, and maintaining said protections while promoting economic growth.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/morocco/asset_upload_file118_3819.pdf|title=FTA Preamble}}</ref> The explicitly defined protections laid out in the Labor section of the agreement are essentially the general rights promoted by the International Labor Organization in their 1998 ; however, the Labor section also provides a framework by which the countries may cooperate to extend labor rights further. The developments listed as potentially pursuable include the establishment of "social safety net programs", regulation of "working conditions", and "timely" creation of "labor market statistics".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/morocco/asset_upload_file118_3819.pdf|title=Labor Section}}</ref> In 2008, U.S. direct investment in Morocco was about 7%, and U.S. aid to Morocco was about 4%.<ref name="Rosenblum, Jennifer 2008, p. 340"/> In 2017, US direct investment in Morocco had risen to 21.4%.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/morocco/foreign-investment|title=Morocco: Foreign Investment}}</ref>

===Oman===
{{Main|Oman–United States relations|Oman–United States Free Trade Agreement}}

On November 15, 2004, the ] notified the ] of its intent to sign a ] with the ]ern ] of ]. On January 19, 2006, the two countries signed the ] (OFTA), which was part of the Bush administration's strategy to create a ] (MEFTA) by 2013.

On June 29, 2006, the ] passed OFTA by a vote of 60–34,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3569 |title=S. 3569 (109th) |access-date=November 28, 2016 |author=109th Congress (2006) |date=June 26, 2006 |work=Legislation |publisher=GovTrack.us |quote=United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act}}</ref> the fewest "aye" votes in the Senate of any trade bill other than ]. On July 20, 2006, the ] passed OFTA by a vote of 221–205, with 7 abstentions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5684 |title=H.R. 5684 (109th) |access-date=November 28, 2016 |author=109th Congress (2006) |date=June 26, 2006 |work=Legislation |publisher=GovTrack.us |quote=United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act}}</ref> For procedural reasons, the Senate took a second vote on September 19, 2006, and the bill's implementing bill was passed 62–32, with 6 abstentions.<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060922220222/http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00250 |date=September 22, 2006}}</ref> In all, the Senate approved the bill 63–37, since all senators voted either "aye" or "nay" in one of the two votes.

President Bush signed the bill into law on September 26, 2006.<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927195909/http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=908497 |date=September 27, 2007}}</ref>
And on December 29, 2008, signed the proclamation to implement the agreement with effective date of January 1, 2009.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081229-2.html|via=]|work=]|title=To Implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement}}</ref>

===Qatar===
{{Main|Qatar–United States relations}}

President Bush visited Qatar in June 2003, where he met with Emir ]. then Visited ] headquarters and addressed U.S. military personnel, becoming the first U.S. president to visit the country.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/06.05.03.html |title=George W. Bush – Remarks to Troops – Sayliyah, Qatar |publisher=Presidential Rhetoric |date=June 5, 2003 |access-date=February 13, 2012}}</ref>

===Saudi Arabia===
{{Main|Saudi Arabia–United States relations}}
], April 2002. Saudi Arabia is a ] in the Middle East.]]

President Bush had close and strong relations with senior members of the ].<ref>{{cite web|last=Henderson|first=Simon|title=The Long Divorce; How the U.S.-Saudi relationship grew cold under Barack Obama's watch.|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/19/the-long-divorce-saudi-arabia-obama/|work=April 19, 2016|date=April 19, 2016 |publisher=]|access-date=April 25, 2016}}</ref> Saudi Arabia engaged the Washington, D.C., ] firm of ] as registered foreign agents in the wake of the public relations disaster when knowledge of the identities of suspected hijackers became known. They also hired the PR and lobbying firm ] for $14 million a year. Qorvis engaged in a PR frenzy that publicized the "9/11 Commission finding that there was 'no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded '—while omitting the report's conclusion that 'Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism.'"<ref name="Putting Lipstick on a Dictator">{{cite magazine|last=Kurlantzick|first=Joshua|title=Putting Lipstick on a Dictator|magazine=]|date=May 7, 2007|url=https://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2007/05/extreme_makeover.html|access-date=August 22, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/middleeast/02lobby.html?scp=1&sq=arab%20lobby&st=cse|work=The New York Times|first=Eric|last=Lichtblau|title=Arab Uprisings Put U.S. Lobbyists in Uneasy Spot|date=March 1, 2011}}</ref>

According to at least one journalist (]), the ruling Saudi family was caught between depending for military defense on the United States, while also depending for domestic support on the ] religious establishment, which as a matter of religious doctrine "ultimately seeks the West's destruction", including that of its ruler's purported ally—the US.<ref name=bradley-expo-213
>{{cite book|last=Bradley|first=John R.|title=Saudi Arabia Exposed : Inside a Kingdom in Crisis|url=https://archive.org/details/saudiarabiaexpos00brad|url-access=registration|date=2005|publisher=Palgrave
|page=
|isbn=9781403964335|quote=The ruling Al-Saud family has long sought{{nbsp}}... to be the ally of the West, especially of the United States, while both influencing it and keeping its corrupting influences at bay, and simultaneously backing a Wahhabi establishment it relies on to remain in power but which also ultimately seeks the West's destruction}}</ref> During the ], Saudi Foreign Minister Prince ], criticized the U.S.-led invasion as a "colonial adventure" aimed only at gaining control of Iraq's natural resources.<ref name=AL-AHRAM>{{cite news|last1=Bradley|first1=John|title=Waiting in the shadows|url=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/693/re3.htm|access-date=October 24, 2014|agency=AL-AHRAM|issue=June 3–9, 2004|archive-date=September 13, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090913144134/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/693/re3.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> But at the same time, Bradley writes, the Saudi government secretly allowed the US military to "essentially" manage its air campaign and launch special operations against Iraq from inside Saudi borders, using "at least three" Saudi air bases.<ref name=bradley-expo-210-1>{{cite book|last=Bradley|first=John R.|title=Saudi Arabia Exposed : Inside a Kingdom in Crisis|url=https://archive.org/details/saudiarabiaexpos00brad|url-access=registration|date=2005|publisher=Palgrave
|pages=
|isbn=9781403964335|quote= aimed only at gaining control of Iraq's natural resources. While that argument could be made quite strongly by anyone else, it is a bit rich coming from any member of the Al-Saud family. During the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia secretly helped the United States by allowing operations from at least three air bases, permitting special forces to stage attacks from Saudi soil, and providing cheap fuel. The American air campaign against Iraq was essentially managed from inside Saudi borders, where military officers operated a command center and launched refueling tankers, F-16 fighter jets, and sophisticated intelligence-gathering flights.}}</ref>

The two nations cooperated and shared information about ] (Alsheikh 2006) and leaders from both countries continue to meet to discuss their mutual interests and bilateral relations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Saudi-US Economic Relations 3 Riyadh|url=http://www.spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1630334|work=May 16, 2017|publisher=]|access-date=May 19, 2017}}</ref>

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are strategic allies,<ref>{{cite news | title=How strained are US-Saudi relations? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36083990 |work=]| date=April 20, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=Old friends US and Saudi Arabia feel the rift growing, seek new partners |url=https://asiatimes.com/2016/05/old-friends-us-and-saudi-arabia-feel-the-rift-growing-seek-new-partners/ |work=]| date=May 2, 2016}}</ref>

===Syria===
{{Main|Syria–United States relations}}

Bush expanded economic sanctions on Syria.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bush expands sanctions on Syria |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7244088.stm |work=BBC News |access-date=February 16, 2008 |date=February 14, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080822122622/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7244088.stm |archive-date=August 22, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2003, Bush signed the ], which expanded sanctions on Syria. In May 2004, a new comprehensive set of economic sanctions were enacted under the Bush administration by Executive Order 13338.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web|url=https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/13338.pdf.|title=Executive Order 13338—Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria|publisher=www.treasury.gov|date=May 13, 2004|access-date=May 14, 2020}}</ref> Overall, There were a total of seven of executive orders enacted by President Bush to implement sanctions on Syria, which include Executive Orders 13315, 13224, 13382, 13338, 13399, 13441, and 13460. These sanctions are imposed on certain Syrian citizens or entities due to their participation in terrorism, acts of public corruption, or their destabilizing activities in Iraq and Lebanon.<ref name=autogenerated1 />

In early 2007, the ], acting on a June 2005 ], froze American bank accounts of Syria's Higher Institute of Applied Science and Technology, Electronics Institute, and National Standards and Calibration Laboratory. Bush's order prohibits Americans from doing business with these institutions suspected of helping spread ]<ref>. Registration required. January 4, 2007. Retrieved June 23, 2009. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515002136/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29109026_ITM |date=May 15, 2011}}</ref> and being supportive of terrorism.<ref>{{cite web |date=October 30, 2003 |access-date=May 31, 2008 |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/25778.htm |title=Syria and Terrorism |publisher=U.S. Department of State}}</ref> Under separate executive orders signed by Bush in 2004 and later 2007, the Treasury Department froze the assets of two Lebanese and two Syrians, accusing them of activities to "undermine the legitimate political process in Lebanon" in November 2007. Those designated included: Assaad Halim Hardan, a member of Lebanon's parliament and current leader of the Syrian Socialist National Party; Wi'am Wahhab, a former member of Lebanon's government (Minister of the Environment) under Prime Minister Omar Karami (2004–2005); Hafiz Makhluf, a colonel and senior official in the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate and a cousin of Syrian President ]; and Muhammad Nasif Khayrbik, identified as a close adviser to Assad.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/world/20071105-1349-terroreconomy.html |title=Administration announces sanctions to combat Syrian influence on Lebanon |work=] |agency=Associated Press |date=November 6, 2007 |access-date=September 28, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140709231554/http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/world/20071105-1349-terroreconomy.html |archive-date=July 9, 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Turkey===
{{Main|Turkey–United States relations#George W. Bush administration (2001–2009)}}
{{expand section|date=November 2024}}

===United Arab Emirates===
{{Main|United Arab Emirates–United States relations}}
] at Abu Dhabi International Airport, January 2008]]

According to ], then US National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism and a contributor in the ], the UAE is the United States best counter-terrorism ally in the Gulf.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf|title=9/11 Commission Report|publisher=9/11 Commission Report|page=138}}</ref> According to previous US ambassador to UAE ], Deputy Commander of the UAE Armed Forces ] structured the UAE Armed forces to be closely aligned with the US military.{{citation needed|date=July 2023}}

The United Arab Emirates Armed Forces is the only Arab country to commit military troops for humanitarian aid missions in the US-led ] when it deployed its forces of 170 soldiers serving in Tarin Kowt province in March 2008.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7319193.stm |title=Afghan 'trust' in Arab troops |work=BBC News |date=March 29, 2008 |access-date=July 5, 2010}}</ref>

==Oceania==

===Australia===
{{Main|Australia–United States relations|Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement}}
] on September 10, 2001. Howard was in Washington during the ].]]
], May 2006]]

President Bush and Australian Prime Minister ] maintained a strong friendship. Following the ], in which eleven Australian citizens were also killed, there was an enormous outpouring of sympathy from Australia for the United States. Prime Minister Howard became one of Bush's strongest international supporters, and supported the United States in the ] in 2001 by invoking the ] treaty and the ] in 2003, by deploying Australian forces in both wars.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/great-australian-foreign-policy-speeches-howard-911-and-us-alliance|title=Great Australian foreign policy speeches: Howard on 9/11 and the US alliance|publisher=www.lowyinstitute.org|date=August 15, 2014|access-date=May 21, 2020}}</ref>

In 2004 the Bush administration "fast tracked" ]. '']'' called the deal a "reward" for Australia's contribution of troops to the Iraq invasion.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040803-1.html|title=President Bush Signs U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement|date=August 3, 2004|via=]|work=]|access-date=April 28, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/15/1089694452858.html |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |title=US House approves free trade pact |date=July 15, 2004}}</ref>

===New Zealand===
{{Main|New Zealand–United States relations}}
], March 2007]]

Relations with New Zealand under the Bush administration improved and became increasingly closer especially after Prime Minister ] visited the White House on March 22, 2007.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0703/S00409.htm | work=Scoop Independent News |title= President Bush Welcomes NZ PM Clark to Oval Office| date=March 22, 2007}}</ref> Following the 9/11 attacks, Prime Minister Clark contributed New Zealand military forces to the War in Afghanistan.

==Sub-Saharan Africa==
{{Further|Africa–United States relations}}

'']'' stated that Africa is the "triumph of American foreign policy" and is the "Bush Administration's greatest achievement".<ref name="Geldof">{{cite magazine |first=Bob |last=Geldof |author-link=Bob Geldof |date=May 3, 2008 |title=The Healer |magazine=Time |pages=38–39}}</ref><ref>Adewale Banjo, "US development diplomacy in Africa: From Bill Clinton to George W. Bush". ''African Journal of Political Science and International Relations'' 4.4 (2010): 140-149</ref><ref>Nicolas Van de Walle, "US policy towards Africa: The Bush legacy and the Obama administration". ''African Affairs'' 109.434 (2010): 1-21 https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adp065</ref>

===Humanitarian aid===
President Bush worked to reduce the ] epidemics in Africa, stop the spread of ], and rebuild broken nations from their genocidal pasts. One of the most notable programs initiated by Bush is the ] (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) Program, which was a commitment of $15 billion over five years (2003–2008) from the United States to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. As of September 2007, the program estimated that it had supported the provision of antiretroviral treatment to approximately 1,445,500 people, mostly in Africa. Alternate Delegate to the United Nations ] advised the US Ambassador to the UN on US engagement in Africa.<ref name="CraftBoard">{{cite web | title = Board of Trustees Members – Kelly Knight Craft | url = http://www.uky.edu/Trustees/members/craft.html | publisher = ] | access-date = August 8, 2018 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170719031848/http://www.uky.edu/Trustees/members/craft.html | archive-date = July 19, 2017}}</ref><ref name="bbc">{{cite news | title = Trump nominates Kelly Knight Craft as the next ambassador to Canada | url = https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40268013 | access-date = August 9, 2017 | publisher = ] | date = June 15, 2017}}</ref><ref name=GDT070913>{{Cite news | url = http://www.glasgowdailytimes.com/news/local_news/bush-nominates-knight-for-un/article_534a5449-9612-55c9-83bc-c8990eb6bbd5.html | title = Bush nominates Knight for UN | last = Ellis | first = Ronnie | date = September 13, 2007 | newspaper = ] |url-access=subscription | access-date = June 18, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170318165743/https://www.glasgowdailytimes.com/news/local_news/bush-nominates-knight-for-un/article_534a5449-9612-55c9-83bc-c8990eb6bbd5.html |archive-date=March 18, 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> Craft also gave a speech to the ] on the investment the U.S. and other nations were making to fight ] and malaria in Africa, and promote development there.<ref name="courier">{{cite web|url=https://uknow.uky.edu/campus-news/uk-alumna-kelly-craft-confirmed-us-ambassador-united-nations|title=UK Alumna Kelly Craft Confirmed as US Ambassador to United Nations|date=August 7, 2019|website=UKNow|author=Lindsey Piercy}}</ref><ref name="auto10">{{Cite web|url=https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/08/trump-nominee-united-nations-ambassador-kelly-craft-deep-ties-kentucky-republican-gop-politics/3341766002/|title=How Trump's pick for UN ambassador has deep ties to Kentucky Republican politics|first=Matt|last=Mencarini|website=The Courier-Journal}}</ref>

Bush also initiated programs that put more than 29 million of Africa's poorest children into schools.<ref name="Geldof"/> Bush provided "huge overt support" in ] to stabilize the country, and increasingly effective aid and trade backing good governance have helped improve health and provide education, skills, and jobs on the continent.<ref name="Geldof"/> He also supported agricultural independence in Africa, reducing Chinese mercantilism on the continent that had been overwhelming the farmers. ]ese cotton farmers urged him to "stand fast on his opposition to the pork-belly politics of the farm bill that is winding its disgraceful way through Congress" on his last visit to Africa. Finally, he was steadfast in changing the Doha round of ] talks so it will favor the poor in Africa.<ref name="Geldof"/>

===Sudan/Darfur conflict===
{{Main|Sudan–United States relations}}
{{Further|War in Darfur}}

On October 13, 2006, President Bush signed the ] imposing sanctions against people responsible for ] and war crimes in ].<ref name="auto3">{{cite web|url=https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/president-bush-signs-darfur-peace-and-accountability-act|title=President Bush signs Darfur Peace and Accountability Act|publisher=ReliefWeb|date=October 14, 2006|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It enables the Bush administration to deny Sudan's government access to oil revenues.<ref name="auto3"/> Furthermore, to the signing of the law, Bush signed another executive order that confirms the existing sanctions but eases some on parts of southern Sudan. It also includes exceptions to facilitate the flow of ] to Darfur. On the other side the order toughens some ]s, including a provision that bars any American from engaging in oil-related transactions in Sudan. The order comes as the Bush administration's new special envoy for Sudan, ], began a trip to Sudan, where he plans to meet with government officials and visit war-torn Darfur.

In response to the Government of Sudan's continued complicity in unabated violence occurring in Darfur, Bush imposed new economic sanctions on Sudan in May 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan/bush-tightens-sanctions-on-sudan-over-darfur-idUSN2828019420070530|title=Bush tightens sanctions on Sudan over Darfur|publisher=www.reuters.com|date=May 29, 2007|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref> These sanctions blocked assets of Sudanese citizens implicated in the Darfur violence, and also sanctioned additional companies owned or controlled by the Government of Sudan. Sanctions continue to underscore U.S. efforts to end the suffering of the millions of Sudanese affected by the crisis in Darfur. Sudan has often accused the U.S. of threatening its ] by supporting referendums in the ] and in Darfur.

===Zimbabwe===
{{Main|United States–Zimbabwe relations}}

In March 2003, President Bush issued an executive order, where he imposed targeted sanctions on the Government of Zimbabwe, including financial and ] measures, sanctions against selected individuals including Zimbabwean President ] and 76 other high-ranking government officials, a ban on transfers of defence items and services, and a suspension of non-humanitarian government-to-government assistance.<ref name="auto2">{{cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/03/07/zimbabwe.us.sanctions.reut/|title=U.S. imposes sanctions on Mugabe|publisher=CNN|date=March 7, 2003|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref> "Over the course of more than two years, the government of Zimbabwe has systematically undermined that nation's democratic institutions, employing violence, intimidation, and repressive means including legislation to stifle opposition to its rule", Bush said in the order.<ref name="auto2"/> Bush also said the situation in Zimbabwe "endangers the southern African region" and threatens to undermine democratic reforms throughout the continent.<ref name="auto2"/><ref name="Rice">{{cite web| url=http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2005/RiceTestimony050118.pdf| title=Rice Testimony | access-date=March 26, 2006 | url-status=dead | page=4| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060325002023/http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2005/RiceTestimony050118.pdf | archive-date=March 25, 2006 }}</ref> Despite strained political relations, the United States continued as a leading provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe, providing about $400,000,000 in humanitarian assistance from 2002 to 2007, most of it being food aid. In January 2005, Secretary of State ] of the Bush administration identified Zimbabwe as one of the states in ]<ref name="Rice"/> due to the Zimbabwean Government of Robert Mugabe's increased assault on human rights and the rule of law.

In July 2008, President Bush signed another executive order to widen the sanctions against individuals and organizations in Zimbabwe associated with what he calls the "illegitimate" regime of President Robert Mugabe after the controversial ].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25845845|title=Bush expands sanctions against Zimbabwe|work=NBC News|date=July 25, 2008|access-date=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

==See also==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
** '']'' by Robert M. Gates
* ]
* ]
* ]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
{{Main|Bibliography of George W. Bush}}
* Adler, Rachel. "Bureaucratic Politics and Mixed Policy Signals: US Foreign Policy for China during the George W. Bush Administration". in ''Bush Administration'' (2009).
* Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, foreign policy, and an evangelical presidential style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 36.4 (2006): 606-632 .
* Burke, John P. "The Contemporary Presidency: Condoleezza Rice as NSC advisor: a case study of the honest broker role". ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 35.3 (2005): 554–575.
* Daalder, Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay, eds. ''America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy'' (Brookings Institution Press, 2003).
* Deyermond, Ruth. "Disputed Democracy: The Instrumentalisation of the Concept of Democracy in US-Russia Relations during the George W. Bush and Putin Presidencies" ''Comillas Journal of International Relations'' 3 (2015): 28–43.
* Eckersley, Robyn. "Ambushed: the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration's Climate Policy and the Erosion of Legitimacy". ''International Politics'' 2007 44(2–3): 306–324. {{ISSN|1384-5748}}
* Green, Michael J. ''By more than providence: Grand strategy and American power in the Asia Pacific since 1783'' (Columbia UP, 2017) pp 482–517.
* Greene, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George W. Bush'' (University Press of Kansas, 2021), scholarly survey of his presidency
* Grondin, David; and David Charles-Philippe, eds. ''Hegemony or Empire?: The Redefinition of US Power under George W. Bush'' (2016)
* Han, Sanghyun. "What is Behind the China Rule in 2007: Motivations for the Bush Administration's Export Control Policy Against China." ''The Korean Journal of International Studies'' 19.3 (2021): 303–338.
* Hancock, Jan. "Human rights narrative in the George W. Bush Administrations". ''Review of International Studies'' 37.2 (2011): 805–823.
* Hadley, Stephen J., et al. eds. ''Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama'' ( Rowman & Littlefield Publishers/Brookings Institution Press. 2023) {{ISBN|978-0-8157-3977-7}}
* Hendrickson, Ryan C., and Kristina Spohr Readman, "From the Baltic to the Black Sea: Bush's NATO Enlargement". ''White House Studies''. (2004) 4#3 pp: 319+.
* {{cite book |last=Jentleson |first=Bruce W. |title=American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century |url=https://archive.org/details/americanforeignp00jent |url-access=registration |edition=Second |year=2003 |publisher=Norton |isbn=9780393979343 |ref=none}}
* {{cite book |last=Kagan |first=Robert |title=Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order |url=https://archive.org/details/ofparadisepower000kaga |url-access=registration |year=2003|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing |isbn=9781400034185 |ref=none}}
* Kim, Mikyoung. "Ethos and Contingencies: A Comparative Analysis of the Clinton and Bush Administrations' North Korea Policy". ''Korea and World affairs'' 31.2 (2007): 172–203.
* Lindsay, James M. "George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the future of US global leadership". ''International Affairs'' 87.4 (2011): 765–779.
* Marsden, Lee. "Bush, Obama and a faith-based US foreign policy". ''International Affairs'' 88.5 (2012): 953–974.
*{{cite book |last=Moens |first=Alexander |title=The Foreign Policy Of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy and Loyalty |year=2004|ref=none}}
* Murray, Donette; David Brown; and Martin A. Smith. ''George W. Bush's foreign policies: principles and pragmatism'' (Routledge. 2018); a British analysis
* Oliver, James. "Pragmatic Fathers and Ideological Suns: Foreign Policy in the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W Bush". ''White House Studies'' 7 (2007): 203+.
* Pham, J. Peter. "The development of the United States Africa command and its role in America's Africa policy under George W. Bush and Barack Obama". ''Journal of the Middle East and Africa'' 5.3 (2014): 245–275.
* Roberts, Guy. ''U.S. Foreign Policy and China: Bush's first term'' (2014).
* Smith, Jean Edward. ''Bush'' (2016), a scholarly biography of George W. Bush.
* Strozeski, Josh, et al. "From Benign Neglect to Strategic Interest: the Role of Africa in the Foreign Policies of Bush 41 and 43". ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(1): 35–51.
* Thompson, Alexander. "Why Did Bush Bypass the UN in 2003? Unilateralism, Multilateralism And Presidential Leadership". ''White House Studies'' 11.4 (2011).
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Zelizer|editor1-first=Julian E.|title=The Presidency of George W. Bush: A First Historical Assessment|date=2010|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=9780691134857|ref=none}}

===Middle East and terrorism===
* Al-Qahtani, Fawaz. "Continuity and change in United States’ foreign policy towards Gulf region after the events of September 11, 2001: A comparative vision between the Bush and Obama administrations." ''Review of Economics and Political Science'' 4.1 (2019): 2-19.
* Aslam, M. W. "Operation Iraqi Freedom: prudence and the 'great power responsibility' to deliberate". ''Journal of Power'' 3.3 (2010): 427–444.
* {{cite journal |last=Britton |first=Gregory |title=September 11, American 'Exceptionalism', and the War in Iraq |journal=Australasian Journal of American Studies |volume=25 |year=2006 |pages=125–141 |ref=none}}
* Condit, Celeste Michelle. ''Angry public rhetorics: Global relations and emotion in the wake of 9/11'' (U of Michigan Press, 2018).
* {{cite journal |last=Dalby |first=Simon |title=Geopolitics, Grand Strategy, and the Bush Doctrine |journal=Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies Working Papers |location=Singapore |volume=90 |year=2005 |url=http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP90.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625063534/http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP90.pdf |archive-date=June 25, 2008 |ref=none}}
* Desch, Michael C. "Bush and the Generals". ''Foreign Affairs'' 2007 86(3): 97–108. {{ISSN|0015-7120}} Fulltext: ]
* Dolan, Chris J., Tom Lansford, and Patrick Hayden. ''In war we trust: the Bush doctrine and the pursuit of just war'' (Routledge, 2018).
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''A choice of enemies: America confronts the Middle East'' (Hachette, 2009) PP. 373–511.
* Freedman, Robert O. "George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the Arab-Israeli Conflict from 2001 to 2011". in ''Israel and the United States'' (Routledge, 2018) pp.&nbsp;36–78.
* Fusman, Alfred. "US Presidential discourse, September 11–20, 2011: the birth of the war on terror". ''Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies'' 12#34 (2013): 126–151.
* Ghazvinian, John. ''America and Iran: A history, 1720 to the present'' (Simon and Schuster, 2020) pp.&nbsp;417–470.
* Gordon, Michael R., and Bernard E. Trainor. ''The endgame: The inside story of the struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama'' (Pantheon, 2012).
* Hartenian, Larry. ''George W Bush administration propaganda for an invasion of Iraq: The absence of evidence'' (Routledge, 2021).
* Kitfield James. ''War & Destiny: How the Bush Revolution in Foreign and Military Affairs Redefined American Power'' (2005)
* Kraybill, Jeanine E., and Raul Madrid Jr. "The Rhetoric of Crisis: George W. Bush during the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars." ''American Communication Journal'' 21.1 (2019).
* LaFeber, Walter. "The Bush Doctrine" ''Diplomatic History'' 26#4 (2002) pp 543–558, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7709.00326 "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
* {{cite journal |last=Pressman |first=Jeremy |title=Power without Influence: The Bush Administration's Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East |journal=International Security |volume=33 |issue=4 |year=2009 |pages=149–179 |doi=10.1162/isec.2009.33.4.149 |s2cid=57564733 |ref=none}}
* Rubin, Gabriel. "George W. Bush: Policy Selling and Agenda-Setting After 9/11." in ''Presidential Rhetoric on Terrorism under Bush, Obama and Trump: Inflating and Calibrating the Threat after 9/11'' (2020) pp: 55–80.
* Saiya, Nilay. "Onward Christian Soldiers: American Dispensationalists, George W. Bush and the Middle East". ''Holy Land Studies'' 11.2 (2012): 175–204.
* Sayle, Timothy Andrews, et al., eds. ''The Last Card: Inside George W. Bush's Decision to Surge in Iraq'' (Cornell University Press, 2019), includes primary sources
* Shipoli, Erdoan A. "Securitization of Islam in US Foreign Policy: The Bush Administration." in ''Islam, Securitization, and US Foreign Policy'' (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018) pp.&nbsp;167–210.
* Singh, Robert S. "The Trump, Bush, and Obama doctrines: A comparative analysis." in ''The Trump doctrine and the emerging international system'' (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021) pp.&nbsp;319–353.
* Tomiak, M. K. "Did 9/11 Really Bring About a Revolution in American Foreign Policy?" ''Security Studies'' 102 (2006). online
* ]. ''Plan of Attack'' (2003),
* {{cite book |title=The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 |last=Wright|first=Lawrence |year=2006 |publisher=Knopf |url=https://archive.org/details/loomingtoweralqa00wrig|url-access=registration |isbn=978-0-375-41486-2 |author-link=Lawrence Wright}}
* Wright, Steven. ''The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror'' (2007).
* Zoughbie, DE. ''Indecision Points: George W. Bush and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'' (MIT Press, 2014),

===Historiography and memory===
* {{cite journal |last=Ambrosius |first=Lloyd E. |title=Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means in Their Foreign Policies |journal=Diplomatic History |volume=30 |issue=3 |year=2006 |pages=509–543 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-7709.2006.00563.x |ref=none}}
* Bahador, Babak, Jeremy Moses, and William Lafi Youmans. "Rhetoric and recollection: Recounting the George W. Bush administration's case for war in Iraq". ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 48.1 (2018): 4-26. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211116064919/http://journals.mountaintopuniversity.edu.ng/Journalism/Rhetoric%20and%20Recollection%20Recounting%20the%20George%20W.%20Bush%20Administration%E2%80%99s%20Case%20for%20War%20in%20Iraq.pdf |date=November 16, 2021 }}
* Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style". ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. 36#4 2006. pp 606+.
* Brands, Hal, and Peter Feaver. "The case for Bush revisionism: Reevaluating the legacy of America's 43rd president." ''Journal of Strategic Studies'' 41.1-2 (2018): 234–274. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220205194639/https://halbrands.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/12___20___2017_The-case-f.pdf |date=February 5, 2022 }}
* Gregg II, Gary L. and Mark J. Rozell, eds. ''Considering the Bush Presidency'' Oxford University Press, 2004. 210 pp. British perspectives
* Haar, Roberta. "Explaining George W. Bush's adoption of the neoconservative agenda after 9/11". ''Politics & Policy'' 38.5 (2010): 965–990.
* {{cite journal|author-link=David Halberstam |last=Halberstam |first=David |url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/08/halberstam200708 |title=The History Boys |journal=] |year=2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080919045657/http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/08/halberstam200708 |archive-date=September 19, 2008 |ref=none}} Halberstam's final essay ("debunks the Bush administration's wild distortion of history")
* {{cite journal |last=Leffler |first=Melvyn P. |year=2013 |title=The Foreign Policies of the George W. Bush Administration: Memoirs, History, Legacy |journal=Diplomatic History |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=190–216 |doi=10.1093/dh/dht013 |ref=none}}; historiography
* Leffler, Melvyn P. "9/11 in retrospect: George W. Bush's grand strategy, reconsidered". ''Foreign Affairs'' (2011): 33–44. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211116061255/http://www.sppm.tsinghua.edu.cn/eWebEditor/UploadFile/20111123043221787.doc |date=November 16, 2021 }}
* Murray, Donette, David Brown, and Martin A. Smith. ''George W. Bush's Foreign Policies: Principles and Pragmatism'' (Routledge, 2017).
* Peleg, Ilan. ''The legacy of George W. Bush's foreign policy: Moving beyond neoconservatism'' (Routledge, 2018) .
* Yongtao, Liu. "Discourse, Meanings and IR Studies: Taking the Rhetoric of 'Axis of Evil' As a Case". ''CONfines de relaciones internacionales y ciencia política'' 6.11 (2010): 85–106.
* {{cite book |last=Wright |first=Steven |title=The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror |publisher=Ithaca Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-86372-321-6 |ref=none}}

===Primary sources===
* {{cite book |author-link=George W. Bush |last=Bush |first=George W. |title=The George W. Bush Foreign Policy Reader: Presidential Speeches |editor-first=John W. |editor-last=Dietrich |year=2005 |ref=none}}
* Bush, George W. '']'' (2010)
* Cheney, Dick. ''In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir'' (2011)
* Dietrich, John W. ed. ''The George W. Bush Foreign Policy Reader: Presidential Speeches with Commentary'' (Routledge, 2015).
* Rice, Condoleezza. ''No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington'' (2011)
* Rice, Condoleezza, and President George W. Bush. ''Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama'' (Brookings Institution Press, 2023).
* Rumsfeld, Donald. ''Known and Unknown: A Memoir'' (2011)


==External links==
On ], 2004, in a statement on the fiftieth anniversary of the ] program, Bush hailed the United States for feeding the hungry. Noting that "Millions are facing great affliction...," he stated that "America has a special calling to come to their aid...." After the election, however, the Bush administration told several private charities that it would not be honoring previous funding commitments. The shortfall, estimated at $100 million, forced the charities to suspend or eliminate programs that had already been approved and that sought to improve farming, education and health in order to promote self-sufficiency in poor countries.
{{George W. Bush}}
{{United States policy}}
{{Foreign policy of U.S. presidents}}


] {{DEFAULTSORT:Foreign Policy of the George W. Bush Administration}}
] ]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 16:07, 10 December 2024

Overview of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration Main article: Presidency of George W. Bush

This article is part of
a series aboutGeorge W. Bush

Business and personal
46th Governor of Texas
43rd President of the United States
Tenure
Policies
Appointments
Presidential campaigns
George W. Bush's signature Seal of the President of the United States

The main event by far shaping the United States foreign policy during the presidency of George W. Bush (2001–2009) was the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent war on terror. There was massive domestic and international support for destroying the attackers. With UN approval, US and NATO forces quickly invaded the attackers' base in Afghanistan and drove them out and the Taliban government that harbored them. It was the start of a 20-year quagmire that finally ended in failure with the withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan.

Other interactions with foreign nations during this period included diplomatic and military initiatives in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. Important economic developments that occurred during Bush's presidency include the several free-trade agreements.

The chief advisors of the president were Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Appointments

Bush's 2001 foreign policy teamDick CheneyDick CheneyGeorge TenetGeorge TenetCondoleezza RiceCondoleezza RiceColin PowellColin PowellDonald RumsfeldDonald Rumsfeld
George W. Bush administration foreign policy personnel
Vice President Cheney
(2001–2009)
Secretary of State Powell
(2001–2005)
Rice
(2005–2009)
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
(2001–2006)
Gates
(2006–2009)
Ambassador to the United Nations Cunningham
(2001)
Negroponte
(2001–2004)
Danforth
(2004–2005)
Patterson
(2005)
Bolton
(2005–2006)
Wolff
(2006–2007)
Khalilzad
(2007–2009)
Director of Central Intelligence Tenet
(2001–2004)
McLaughlin
(2004)
Goss
(2004–2005)
Discontinued
(2005–2009)
Director of National Intelligence Not yet created
(2001–2005)
Negroponte
(2005–2007)
McConnell
(2007–2009)
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Not yet created
(2001–2005)
Goss
(2005–2006)
Hayden
(2006–2009)
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Rice
(2001–2005)
Hadley
(2005–2009)
Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Hadley
(2001–2005)
Crouch
(2005–2007)
Jeffrey
(2007–2008)
Trade Representative Zoellick
(2001–2005)
Allgeier
(2005)
Sapiro
(2005–2006)
Schwab
(2006–2009)

Approaching foreign policy

George W. Bush had little experience or interest in foreign policy prior to the presidency and his decisions were guided by his advisers. In a gaffe in 2000, for example, Bush confused Afghanistan's ruling Taliban with a musical band. Bush embraced the views of Cheney and other neoconservatives, who de-emphasized the importance of multilateralism; neoconservatives believed that because the United States was the world's lone superpower, it could act unilaterally if necessary. At the same time, Bush sought to enact the less interventionist foreign policy he had promised during the 2000 campaign. Also during the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush's foreign policy platform included support for stronger economic and political relationship with Latin America, especially Mexico, and a reduction of involvement in "nation-building" and other small-scale military engagements. Oliver argues that Bush was quickly influenced by ideologues who argued for unilateral action to establish US primacy in world affairs. They included Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, – with Secretary of State Colin Powell as a non-ideological centrist.

September 11 attacks

Main article: September 11 attacks
President Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office, regarding the terrorist attacks, September 11, 2001
President Bush, standing with firefighter Bob Beckwith, addressing rescue workers at Ground Zero in New York, September 14, 2001

On September 11, 2001, two hijacked planes destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after being averted by passengers from its target. These attacks were carried out by the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization led by mastermind Osama Bin Laden

On September 14, 2001, Congress passed legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which was signed on September 18, 2001, by President Bush. It authorized the use of US Armed Forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those who harbored them.

The September 11 terrorist attacks were a major turning point in Bush's presidency. That evening, he addressed the nation from the Oval Office, promising a strong response to the attacks. He also emphasized the need for the nation to come together and comfort the families of the victims. Three days after the attacks, Bush visited Ground Zero and met with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, firefighters, police officers, and volunteers. To much applause, Bush addressed the gathering via a megaphone while standing in a heap of rubble: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

President Bush delivers an address and declares "Freedom at War with Fear", September 20, 2001

In his address to a joint session of congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush condemned Osama bin Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda, and issued an ultimatum to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where bin Laden was operating, to "hand over the terrorists, or ... share in their fate".

Writing about changes to the US State Department in the wake of the September 11 attacks in a 2020 article in Foreign Affairs magazine, former Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and former Assistant Secretary of State Linda Thomas-Greenfield said, "Although the transformation of the State Department into a more expeditionary and agile institution was healthy in many respects, it was also distorting. It was tethered to a fundamentally flawed strategy—one that was too narrowly focused on terrorism and too wrapped up in magical thinking about the United States' supposed power to transform regions and societies."

Bush Doctrine

Main article: Bush Doctrine

After the September 11 attacks, Bush's approval ratings increased tremendously. Bush decided to use his newfound political capital to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy. He became increasingly focused on the possibility of a hostile country providing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to terrorist organizations. During his State of the Union Address in January 2002, Bush set forth what has become known as the Bush Doctrine, which held that the United States would implement a policy of preemptive military strikes against nations known to be harboring or aiding a terrorist organization hostile to the United States. Bush outlined what he called the "Axis of Evil", consisting of three nations that, he argued, posed the greatest threat to world peace due to their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and potential to aid terrorists. The axis consisted of Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Bush also began emphasizing the importance of spreading democracy worldwide, stating in 2005 that "the survival of liberty in our land depends on the success of liberty in other land." Pursuant to this newly-interventionist policy, the Bush administration boosted foreign aid and increased defense expenditures. Defense spending rose from $304 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $616 billion in fiscal year 2008.

National missile defense

On December 13, 2001, President Bush announced the withdrawal of the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a bedrock of U.S.–Soviet nuclear stability during the Cold War era. Bush stated, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks." According to the announcement, the withdrawal was to become effective six months from that date. The Bush administration pursued a national missile defense. The national missile defense project that Clinton introduced and Bush supported was designed to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles and destroy them in flight. Critics doubted that the project could ever work and said that it would cost US$53 billion from 2004 to 2009, being the largest single line item in the Pentagon's funding.

Other issues

Environmental issues

In terms of international environmental policy, Daynes, and Sussman argues the son was less committed than the father, and neither was as successful as Bill Clinton. Many governments have criticized the failure of the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed but not submitted for Senate ratification by the previous administration. Former President Bill Clinton recommended that his successor not submit the treaty for ratification until the wording was altered to reflect U.S. concerns. Bush, who was opposed to the treaty, rescinded U.S. executive approval from the proposed treaty. In 1997, prior to the Kyoto negotiations, the Byrd–Hagel Resolution passed in the U.S. Senate by a 95–0 vote. The resolution stated that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized ones, or that seriously harm the American economy. Byron W. Daynes, and Glen Sussman conclude that Bush's policy had a "negative impact on the environment".

International Criminal Court

World map of ICC member states as of 2007

The International Criminal Court (ICC) came into being on July 1, 2002. The ICC is the first ever permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

Later that year, in August 2002, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) was passed by Congress with the stated intention "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not a party."

International trips

Further information: List of international presidential trips made by George W. Bush
Countries visited by President Bush during his time in office

The number of visits per country where he traveled are:

International trade

President Bush supported free trade policies and legislation but resorted to protectionist policies on occasion. Tariffs on imported steel imposed by the White House in March 2002 were lifted after the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled them illegal. Bush explained that the safeguard measures had "achieved their purpose", and "as a result of changed economic circumstances", it was time to lift them. Bush used the authority he gained from the Trade Act of 2002 to push through bilateral trade agreements with several countries. Bush also sought to expand multilateral trade agreements through the WTO, but negotiations were stalled in the Doha Development Round for most of Bush's presidency. On August 31, 2004, WTO arbitrators authorized the European Union and other leading U.S. trade partners to impose economic sanctions against the United States for violation of global trade laws. The decision by the WTO was one of several cases where the U.S. was found to have been in breach of international trade rules.

However, Bush pursued and signed free trade agreements with several countries, including Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Colombia, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Peru, Panama, Singapore, South Korea, Ukraine, and with six countries under the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Defense

Weapons of mass destruction

The Bush administration released its "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" in December 2002. The strategy includes three key elements: counterproliferation to combat the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), strengthened nonproliferation to combat WMD proliferation, and consequence management to respond to WMD use. The classified version of this strategy reportedly reserved the right to use overwhelming force, including potentially nuclear weapons, in response to a WMD attack against the United States, its forces or allies.

In February 2004, in the context of recent revelations about clandestine nuclear programs in Iran and Libya, and the role of the A. Q. Khan network in proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology, Bush proposed seven initiatives:

  1. Cooperation on law enforcement for interdiction of WMD trade, known as the Proliferation Security Initiative;
  2. Passage of a UN Security Council Resolution requiring states to enact WMD-related controls, which led to UN Security Council Resolution 1540;
  3. Expansion of the G8 Global Partnership to eliminate WMD and secure WMD materials worldwide;
  4. Reliable access to nuclear fuel, accompanied by a ban on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology to countries that do not already have such facilities;
  5. Making the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol a condition for nuclear supply, and ratification of the U.S. Additional Protocol;
  6. Establishing a Special Committee of the IAEA Board of Governors on safeguards and verification to strengthen compliance and enforcement; and
  7. Excluding countries under investigation for nonproliferation violations from serving on the Board or the Special Committee.

Defense spending

Of the US$2.4 trillion budgeted for 2005, about $450 billion was planned to be spent on defense. This level was generally comparable to the defense spending during the Cold War. Congress approved $87 billion for U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan in November, and had approved an earlier $79 billion package the previous spring. Most of the funds were for military operations in the two countries.

The ratio of defense spending of the U.S. and its allies to its potential adversaries, for the year 2000, was about 6 to 1.

International organizations

In July 2002, Bush cut off all funding, approximately $34 million, for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). This funding had been allocated by Congress the previous December. Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced abortions and sterilizations in China. His justification came from a group of members of Congress who oppose abortion and an anti-abortion organization called the Population Research Institute, which claimed to have obtained first-hand video taped evidence from victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization in counties where the UNFPA operates in China. This accusation has never been supported by any investigation, and has in fact been disproved by the US State Department, UK, and UN teams sent to examine UNFPA activities in China. The UNFPA points out that it "does not provide support for abortion services". Its charter includes a strong statement condemning coercion."

The Bush administration opposed the creation of the United Nations Human Rights Council to protest the repressive states among its membership.

UN peacekeeping

Further information: United Nations peacekeeping

In the United States, the Clinton and Bush administrations started from opposite perspectives but came to adopt remarkably similar policies in support of peace operations as tools for American foreign policy. Initial positions formed by ideological concerns, were replaced by pragmatic decisions about how to support UN peace operations. Both administrations were reluctant to contribute large contingents of ground troops to UN-commanded operations, even as both administrations supported increases in the number and scale of UN missions.

The Clinton administration faced significant operational challenges. Instead of a liability, this was the tactical price of strategic success. American peace operations help transform its NATO alliance. The Bush administration started with a negative ideological attitude toward peace operations. However European and Latin American governments emphasized peace operations as strategically positive, especially regarding the use of European forces in Afghanistan and Lebanon. However American allies sometimes needed to flout their autonomy, even to the point of sacrificing operational efficiency, much to the annoyance of Washington.

Foreign aid

On July 21, 2004, in a statement on the fiftieth anniversary of the Food for Peace program, Bush hailed the United States for feeding the hungry. Noting that "Millions are facing great affliction", he stated that "America has a special calling to come to their aid." After the 2004 election, however, the Bush administration told several private charities that it would not be honoring previous funding commitments. The shortfall, estimated at $100 million, forced the charities to suspend or eliminate programs that had already been approved to improve farming, education and health in order to promote self-sufficiency in poor countries.

While the United States continued to give large amounts of aid abroad, the Bush presidency was criticized for having a major impact upon the Millennium Development Goals project of the United Nations. Many nations, including key OECD members, were criticized for falling far short of their promise to give 0.7% of their GDP in order to drastically reduce poverty by the target date of 2015.

In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, Bush outlined a five-year strategy for global emergency AIDS relief, the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief. The emergency relief effort was led by U.S. Ambassador Randall L. Tobias, former CEO of Eli Lilly and Global AIDS Coordinator at the Department of State. At the time of the speech, $9 billion was earmarked for new programs in AIDS relief for the 15 countries most affected by HIV/AIDS, another $5 billion for continuing support of AIDS relief in 100 countries where the U.S. already had bilateral programs established, and an additional $1 billion towards the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This budget represented more money contributed to fight AIDS globally than all other donor countries combined.

As the largest national economy in the world, the United States' leadership and commitment was seen as vital in addressing world poverty and ensuring implementation of the project, considered the most progressive and feasible to date for the United Nations or any other institution.

President Bush signed a multimillion-dollar aid deal with the government of Tanzania on February 17, 2008. Bush, cheering Liberians to rebound from Second Liberian Civil War that left their nation in ruins, said February 21, 2008, that the United States will keep lending a hand to make Liberia a symbol of liberty for Africa and the world. President Bush ordered the release of $200 million in emergency aid to help countries in Africa and elsewhere. Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over surging food prices catapulted the issue to the forefront of the world's attention.

Criticisms and defenses

The Bush policies in the Middle East, especially Iraq, have come under intense criticism although there are some supporters as well. Bush supporters point to a range of more successful policies elsewhere in the world, as summarized by Hal Brands and Peter Feaver:

The administration successfully negotiated the Moscow Treaty, which codified mutually agreed upon deep cuts in the strategic arsenals. With respect to India, determined and creative engagement fostered a diplomatic breakthrough that brought New Delhi out of the 'nuclear ghetto' and fostered increased strategic cooperation with one of the world's most important rising powers. Regarding China, the Bush administration ... generally stable relations with a rising Beijing. The administration also maintained positive ties with Japan, continuing the post-Cold War process of encouraging that country to broaden its defense and strategic horizons. And across the Asia-Pacific, the Bush administration continued to modernize US alliances and partnerships. ... The administration also established fairly productive relations with a rising Brazil in Latin America. ... continued and expanded Plan Colombia, an aggressive counter-narcotics and counter-insurgency assistance plan that helped ... to reverse the trajectory of the Colombian civil war and make Bogota a key strategic partner in the region. ... In Africa, the administration's record was perhaps most transformative of all. ... Bush dramatically increased both the quantity and quality of foreign aid, doubling the aid budget and pushing forward important new reforms.

Americas

Canada

Main article: Canada–United States relations Main articles: Canada in the War in Afghanistan and Canada and the Iraq War
President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, September 2002
President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, July 2006

Canada's elite JTF2 unit joined American special forces in the U.S.-led coalition War in Afghanistan shortly after the al-Qaida attacks on September 11, 2001. Canadian forces joined the multinational coalition in Operation Anaconda in January 2002. On April 18, 2002, an American pilot bombed Canadian forces involved in a training exercise, killing four and wounding eight Canadians. A joint American-Canadian inquiry determined the cause of the incident to be pilot error, in which the pilot interpreted ground fire as an attack; the pilot ignored orders that he felt were "second-guessing" his field tactical decision. Canadian forces assumed a six-month command rotation of the International Security Assistance Force in 2003; in 2005, Canadians assumed operational command of the multi-national Brigade in Kandahar, with 2,300 troops, and supervises the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, where al-Qaida forces are most active.

Relations between President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien were strained throughout their overlapping times in office. After the September 11 attacks terror attacks, Jean Chrétien publicly mused that U.S. foreign policy might be part of the "root causes" of terrorism. Some Americans criticized his "smug moralism", and Chrétien's public refusal to support the 2003 Iraq war was met with negative responses in the United States, especially among conservatives.

Prime Minister Chrétien said on October 10, 2002, that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in Parliament on June 18, 2003, that Canada would not participate in the pending invasion. Nevertheless, he offered the US and its soldiers his moral support. However, according to classified U.S. documents released by WikiLeaks, a high-ranking Canadian official may have secretly promised to clandestinely support the invasion.

President Bush and newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper were thought to share warm personal relations and also close ties between their administrations. Because Bush was so unpopular among liberals in Canada (particularly in the media), this was underplayed by the Harper government.

Shortly after being congratulated by President Bush following his election victory in January 2006, Harper rebuked U.S. ambassador to Canada David Wilkins for criticizing the Conservatives' plans to assert Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean waters with military force.

Central American Free Trade Agreement

Main article: Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement
President Bush and Central American leaders, April 2003

The U.S. Senate approved the CAFTA-DR on June 30, 2005, by a vote of 54–45, and the U.S. House of Representatives approved the pact on July 28, 2005, by a vote of 217–215, with two representatives not voting. Controversy arose over this vote because it was held open 1 hour and 45 minutes longer than the normal 15 minutes in order to get some members to change their votes. For procedural reasons, the Senate took a second vote on CAFTA on July 28 and the pact garnered an additional vote from Sen. Joe Lieberman—who had been absent on June 30—in favor of the agreement. The implementing legislation became Public Law 109-053 when it was signed by Bush on August 2, 2005.

The Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras have also approved the agreement. They are all the current members of CAFTA-DR.

El Salvador became the first country to formally implement CAFTA, which went into effect on March 1, 2006, when the Organization of American States (OAS) received signed copies of the treaty. On April 1, 2006, Honduras and Nicaragua fully implemented the agreement. On May 18, 2006, the Congress of Guatemala ratified CAFTA-DR, which went into effect on July 1, 2006. The Dominican Republic implemented the agreement on March 1, 2007. In a referendum on October 7, 2007, Costa Rica narrowly backed the free trade agreement, with 51.6% voting "Yes"; the agreement took effect on January 1, 2009.

Chile

Main articles: Chile–United States relations and Chile–United States Free Trade Agreement

President Bush signed the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement signed on June 6, 2003. The pact came into force on January 1, 2004. On that date, tariffs on 90% of U.S. exports to Chile and 95% of Chilean exports to the United States were eliminated. The agreement also established that Chile and the U.S. will establish duty-free trade in all products within a maximum of 12 years (2016). In 2009, bilateral trade between the United States and Chile reached US$15.4 billion, a 141% increase over bilateral trade levels before the U.S.-Chile FTA took effect. In particular, U.S. exports to Chile in 2009 showed a 248% increase over pre-FTA levels.

Mexico

Main article: Mexico–United States relations
President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox, March 2005

During Fox's administration, Mexico pushed for "comprehensive" reform of U.S. immigration law that addressed the problem of Illegal immigration to the United States. The issue had been called "The Whole Enchilada" by Fox's administration, which stated that "immigration reform in the United States should address mutual border problems, the rights of undocumented immigrants, and the development of regions in Mexico that 'expel' migrants". However, according to former U.S. ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow, all discussions between the parties on immigration were informal.

The immigration reform that Fox sought included a guest worker plan. Fox said, "The best thing that can happen to both our countries is to have an orderly flow, a controlled flow, of migration to the United States". This reform was supported by President Bush and approved by the U.S. Senate, however, the bill was rejected by the House of Representatives. According to the Washington Post, the hopes were complicated by the recent approval of the SBI (Secure Border Initiative), a bill that includes building a 700-mile (1,100 km) triple fence between the U.S. and Mexico.

During Fox's presidency the net migration rate in Mexico increased 152% from −2.84 migrants per 1,000 inhabitants to −4.32; in the same period, population growth decreased 35% from 1.57% to 1.16%. Fox, who was said to be "proud" of Mexican immigrants in the U.S. has acknowledged the importance of remittances by both legal and illegal Mexican workers in the U.S. (now the #1 source of revenue for the country).

During the country's tenure as a rotating member of the UN Security Council, Mexico did not support the U.S-led 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Peru

Main articles: Peru–United States relations and Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement

On November 18, 2003, the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, notified Congress of the intention of the Bush administration to initiate negotiations for a free trade agreement with the countries involved in the Andean trade act. Negotiations started without Bolivia in May 2004, however, as each of the three remaining Andean countries decided to pursue bilateral agreements with the United States. After 13 rounds of negotiations, Peru and the United States concluded an agreement on December 7, 2005. Alfredo Ferrero, Peruvian Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism, and the U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman signed the deal on April 12, 2006, in Washington, D.C., in the presence of Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo.

The Congress of Peru debated the agreement for six hours during the night of June 27, 2006, and ratified it in the early hours of the next day. The vote was 79–14, with seven abstentions. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the agreement on November 8, 2007, with a 285–132 vote. The U.S. Senate approved the agreement on December 4, 2007, with a 77–18 vote. The implementation bills gained wide support from the Republican Party (176–16 in the House, 47–1 in the Senate) and split backing from the Democratic Party (109–116 and 29–17).

On January 16, 2009, Bush signed a proclamation To Implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and for Other Purposes, effective February 1, 2009.

Asia

ASEAN

President Bush simultaneously improved relations with India, Japan, South Korea, China, and ASEAN. Bush confirmed that he would be attending the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) conference for the first time during his presidency in 2007. However, he did not attend the conference due to American opposition to the government of Myanmar at the time.

China

Main article: China–United States relations § George W. Bush administration (2001–2009)
President Bush and Chinese leader Hu Jintao, April 2006

The Bush administration's policy towards China faced the difficult task of sustaining the cooperative US-China relationship in the context of China's rise. China's success in economic development since the 1979 reforms had allowed Beijing to transform growing Chinese material wealth into political and military power. Robert Zoellick, serving in Bush's cabinet as US Trade Representative and Deputy Secretary of State, once underlined that "China is big, it is growing, and it will influence the world in the years ahead. At the end of his second term, President Bush had successfully managed to establish significant elements of US-China cooperation and build a record of cooperation with a rising China while achieving US national interests. During his presidential campaign, Bush revealed his disagreement with the Clinton administration's view of China as "a competitor, not a strategic partner. While seeing China as a power in transition and asserting that if China became a friend of the US, "that friendship will steady the world. But if not, the peace we seek may not be found", Bush warned that China would be "respected as a great power ... unthreatened, but not unchecked", under his administration.

Bush became increasingly concerned about China's growing economic and political influence in the world, often labelled as 'China's rise', and its implications for US primacy and interests. President Bush believed that China's rise was an inevitable phenomenon that the United States had to manage. He strived to build a "constructive, candid, and cooperative" relationship with China. This, in Bush's viewpoint, would form a sturdy basis for the US to advance engagement with China. In fact, Bush's determination to increase cooperation with China led to "the best relations since 1972.

The Bush administration had made efforts to embed the Chinese economy in the international economic system, assist Chinese economic development and share the mutual economic benefits between the two nations. In 2001, despite a confrontation between Washington and Beijing over the downed EP-3E Aries II spy plane which collided with a Chinese fighter jet, President Bush still declared his support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. He said, "I'm an advocate of China's entry into the WTO", stressing that "China ought to be a trading partner of ours. I think it is in our economic interests to open up the Chinese markets to U.S. products, to U.S. agricultural products".

Also, President Bush actively supported permanent normalized trade relations with China. In his view, American farmers and businessmen would gain better benefits from freer access to the large Chinese market. He therefore asked the US Congress to extend normalized trade relations with China in 2001: "Fair trade is essential not only to improving living standards for Americans but also for a strong and productive relationship with China." President Bush and his team believed that trading with China would be a good thing for the US and Chinese economies. Integrating China into the world economy would ultimately lead to the promotion of human dignity in China and the emergence of a good China. In her 2000 article entitled "Promoting the National Interest" Condoleezza Rice, Bush's Secretary of State, wrote: President Bush's efforts to build a cooperative relationship with China can also be seen in his way of maintaining frank and productive relations with Chinese leaders. In 2002–2003 the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) broke out in China. There were up to 5,327 infections and 348 deaths in China. While the Chinese leadership had been criticized for its handling of the SARS outbreak, President Bush praised his Chinese counterpart for being open about this transnational epidemic. President Bush's public support for President Hu in that critical moment was highly appreciated by the Chinese president and contributed to building cooperative leader-to-leader relations between the United States and China.

In the mid-2000s, the United States focused relatively less on China issues. This approach was reinforced by the economic benefits to the United States from its relations with China, including cheaper consumer products like clothing and electronics. During this period, the United States also issued significant debt to fund its military interventions and China became the largest foreign purchaser of U.S. government debt.

President Bush called Chinese President Hu Jintao March 26, 2008, to express his concern about China's crackdown on protesters in Tibet since March 10, 2008. Bush and Hu also discussed issues including Taiwan, North Korea's denuclearization and Myanmar.

India

Main article: India–United States relations
President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, July 2005

Relations with India improved significantly during Bush's tenure. In September 2001, President Bush removed sanctions which had been imposed.

During the tenure of the George W. Bush administration, relations between India and the United States were seen to have blossomed, primarily over common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism, energy security, and climate change. Bush commented, "India is a great example of democracy. It is very devout, has diverse religious heads, but everyone is comfortable about their religion. The world needs India". Fareed Zakaria, in his book The Post-American World, described Bush as "being the most pro-Indian president in American history." Similar sentiments are echoed by Rejaul Karim Laskar, a scholar of Indian foreign policy and ideologue of India's Congress Party – the largest constituent of the UPA. According to Laskar, the UPA rule has seen a "transformation in bilateral ties with the US", as a result of which the relations now covers "a wide range of issues, including high technology, space, education, agriculture, trade, clean energy, counter-terrorism, etc.".

After the December 2004 tsunami, the US and Indian navies cooperated in search and rescue operations and in the reconstruction of affected areas.

Since 2004, Washington and New Delhi have been pursuing a "strategic partnership" that is based on shared values and generally convergent geopolitical interests. Numerous economic, security, and global initiatives – including plans for civilian nuclear cooperation – are underway. This latter initiative, first launched in 2005, reversed three decades of American non-proliferation policy. Also in 2005, the United States and India signed a ten-year defence framework agreement, with the goal of expanding bilateral security cooperation. The two countries engaged in numerous and unprecedented combined military exercises, and major US arms sales to India were concluded. An Open Skies Agreement was signed in April 2005, enhancing trade, tourism, and business via the increased number of flights, and Air India purchased 68 US Boeing aircraft at a cost of $8 billion. The United States and India also signed a bilateral Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation in 2005. After Hurricane Katrina, India donated $5 million to the American Red Cross and sent two planeloads of relief supplies and materials to help. Then, on March 1, 2006, President Bush made another diplomatic visit to further expand relations between India and the U.S.

Japan

Main article: Japan–United States relations
President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, September 2001

During Bush's visit to Japan, In his address to the Japanese parliament in February 2002, President Bush expressed his gratitude to Japan for supporting the US in the war on terror, and asserting that the Japanese response to the terrorist threat showed the strength of the US-Japan alliance and "the indispensable role of Japan, a role that is global, and begins in Asia". President Bush also convinced members of Japan's parliament that the 21st century would be "the Pacific century", and committed to giving support to Japan. The Bush administration made important progress in deepening US-Japan security cooperation. Under Bush, bilateral security initiatives between the United States and Japan were centred on counter-terrorism cooperation. President Bush endorsed the idea that Japan should play a more active international role and praised Japan for its passage of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law that allowed Japan to send refuelling tankers to the Indian Ocean to assist US-led operations in Afghanistan in 2001. On December 9, 2003, the Japanese Diet passed the Humanitarian Relief and Iraqi Reconstruction Special Measures Law that allowed Prime Minister Koizumi to dispatch the Self Defence Forces (SDF) to Iraq. In January 2004, Japan sent a total of 1,000 military personnel (including 550 Ground Self-Defence Force personnel and 450 Maritime Self-Defence Force and Air Self- Defence Force personnel) to Iraq to provide humanitarian assistance and take part in reconstruction activities. This was the first time in the post-war period Japanese troops were sent overseas without an inter- national mandate. Japan withdrew its ground forces in 2006 while a Japanese self-defence forces air division stayed in Iraq until the expiration of the UN authorisation for multilateral forces in Iraq in 2008. Indeed, under Bush, military cooperation between Washington and Tokyo in Afghanistan and Iraq became a new dimension and a symbol of their alliance.

North Korea

Main article: North Korea–United States relations

Bush publicly condemned Kim Jong-il of North Korea and identified North Korea as one of the three states in an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He said that "the United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." and that "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens" Within months, "both countries had walked away from their respective commitments under the U.S.–DPRK Agreed Framework of October 1994." President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union Address, stated that "We're working closely with the governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions" and that "In the next 4 years, my administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time". North Korea's October 9, 2006, detonation of a nuclear device further complicated Bush's foreign policy, which centered for both terms of his presidency on " the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world". Bush condemned North Korea's position, reaffirmed his commitment to "a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula", and said that "transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States", for which North Korea would be held accountable.

North Korea had developed weapons of mass destruction for several years prior to Bush's inauguration, and the Clinton administration had sought to trade economic assistance for an end to the North Korean WMD program. Though Secretary of State Powell urged the continuation of the rapprochement, other administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, were more skeptical of the good faith of the North Koreans. Bush instead sought to isolate North Korea in the hope that the regime would eventually collapse.

North Korea launched missile tests on July 5, 2006, leading to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1695. The country said on October 3, 2006 "The U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK to conduct a nuclear test", which the Bush administration denied and denounced. Days later on October 9, 2006, North Korea followed through on its promise to test nuclear weapons. On October 14, 2006, the Security Council unanimously passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, sanctioning North Korea for the test. In the waning days of his presidency, Bush attempted to re-open negotiations with North Korea, but North Korea continued to develop its nuclear programs.

On May 7, 2007, North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear reactors immediately pending the release of frozen funds held in a foreign bank account. This was a result of a series of three-way talks initiated by the United States and including China. On September 2, 2007, North Korea agreed to disclose and dismantle all its nuclear programs by the end of 2007.

Singapore

Main articles: Singapore–United States relations and Singapore–United States Free Trade Agreement
President Bush and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong signing the free trade agreement, May 2003

President Bush and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong signed a bilateral free trade agreement on May 6, 2003; the agreement entered into force on January 1, 2004. The growth of U.S. investment in Singapore and the large number of Americans living there enhance opportunities for contact between Singapore and the United States.

South Korea

Main articles: South Korea–United States relations and United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement
President Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, May 2003

President Bush simultaneously improved relations with South Korea. On February 20, 2002, during President Bush's visit to South Korea, Bush and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung recognized that the South Korea-U.S. alliance is indispensable not only for stability on the Korean Peninsula but also in Northeast Asia as a whole. Furthermore, President Bush and Kim Dae-Jung expressed satisfaction that the bilateral alliance is not limited to cooperation in security matters but that the comprehensive partnership has expanded and developed to all areas, including political, economic, and diplomatic arenas. President Bush and president Kim Dae-jung exchanged views about the war against terrorism and future course of action. and Dae-Jung praised President Bush for the success in the war against terrorism under his outstanding leadership and indicated that South Korea as an ally would do its utmost to cooperate and provide full support. In December 2001, South Korea deployed troops to the U.S.-led War in Afghanistan . Afterwards, South Korea took only the role of providing medical and vocational training by assisting the United States with only two dozen volunteers working inside Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul. According to an ISAF statement, on June 30, 2008, South Korea returned, operating a small hospital near the airbase in Bagram with military and civilian personnel. In February 2004, South Korea deployed troops to Iraq as part of the coalition forces to provide support to U.S. forces in the Iraq War, which was also another boost in U.S.-ROK Relations.

Taiwan

Main article: Taiwan–United States relations

Bush's hostile position toward China in the 2000 campaign and early months of his presidency was suddenly reversed after 9/11, and his especially friendly attitude toward Taiwan became a casualty. During his campaign Bush had warned that Clinton was too friendly with China, which he saw as a strategic competitor. Early on as president Bush increased arms sales to Taiwan, including 8 submarines. He was asked on April 25, 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do ... and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree." However, on the advice of Rice and Powell, he later explained that he was not changing America's historical relationships. The shock of 9/11 force Bush to move closer to China. Soon he was calling China a strategic partner in the war on terror and postponing deals with Taiwan.

Taiwan's leadership was increasingly nervous in the early 21st century. It had to deal with growing isolation around the world because of China's pressure on other countries. In economic terms, it was facing worsening trade relationships with major trading partners. According to Chen-Don Tso, Taiwan was unable to make free trade agreements with them. Its main goal was to reach an explicit partnership with the United States. However, repeated efforts by Taiwan especially in 2003 to 2006 were rejected by Washington, in its quest to improve relations with Beijing.

Europe

Historical background

From left: French President Jacques Chirac, President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi at the G8 Summit at Evian, France. Chirac was against the invasion, the other three leaders were in favor of it.

President Bush made his first visit to Europe in June 2001. Bush came under criticism from European leaders for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, which was aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming. He asserted that the Kyoto Protocol is "unfair and ineffective" because it would exempt 80 percent of the world and "cause serious harm to the U.S. economy". Post September 11, President Bush worked closely with his NATO allies in Europe, to fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan. However, after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, relations were strained with France and Germany, who strongly opposed the invasion. But President Bush had an excellent relationship with Tony Blair of Britain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, which took part in the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush began his second term with an emphasis on improving strained relations with European nations. Bush lauded the pro-democracy struggles in Georgia and Ukraine. However, Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan and Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, both undemocratically elected and fiercely autocratic, received official state visits to the White House, along with increased economic and military assistance. The President had encouraged both leaders to hold free and fair elections early on in his second term, but in fact neither leader carried out significant reforms.

Belarus

Main article: Belarus–United States relations

President Bush signed the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 on October 20, 2004, to impose sanctions on the Belarus government of Alexander Lukashenko. The law expresses the sense of Congress that the Belarusian authorities should not receive various types of non-humanitarian financial aid from the U.S. It also calls for the President to report to Congress on arms sales by Belarus to state sponsors of terrorism and on the personal wealth and assets of senior Belarus officials. President Bush said in his signing statement of October 20, 2004, "will work with our allies and partners to assist those seeking to return Belarus to its rightful place among the Euro-Atlantic community of democracies."

In June 2006, President Bush issued executive order to freeze the US assets of hard-line Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and nine other individuals deemed obstacles to democracy in the former Soviet republic. "There is simply no place in a Europe whole and free for a regime of this kind", Bush said in a letter to the US Congress announcing his executive order, which affects assets held in the United States or by US financial institutions.

On December 8, 2006, the United States House of Representatives passed, and (following Senate enactment) on January 12, 2007, President Bush signed into law, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, a statute amending and updating the act.

Czech Republic

Main article: Czech Republic–United States relations

President Bush enjoyed a strong relationship with President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Havel. On January 30, 2003, Havel signed The letter of the eight supporting the U.S. led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Havel also deployed Czech forces in the Iraq War as part the Coalition forces in May 2003.

Havel's successor Václav Klaus, also deployed Czech forces in the U.S. led coalition War in Afghanistan in 2004.

Denmark

Main article: Denmark–United States relations
President Bush and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, July 2005

President Bush and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen enjoyed a strong friendship. Denmark with Rasmussen, deployed forces to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in 2001 as part of NATO forces in the International Security Assistance Force. Rasmussen strongly supported the 2003 Iraq War and was one of the signatories of The letter of the eight on January 30, 2003. As in most European countries he faced considerable opposition, both in the parliament and in the general population. Subsequent opinion polls suggested the Danish population's opinion was split on the issue. One vocal protester managed to get into the Danish parliament during the period before the war, where he poured red paint on the prime minister while yelling "Du har blod på dine hænder" (literally: "You have blood on your hands"). A member of the Danish parliament for the socialist Red-Green Alliance, Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil, stated that it was a reaction she might have made under the circumstances, although she later denounced such behaviour. Denmark was one of only five countries to take part in the actual invasion operations (the others being the U.S., UK, Poland and Australia) though the contingent mainly consisted of two minor warships and staff and radio units that were never involved in actual combat. In the months after the initial phase of the war, Danish troops participated in the multi-national force stationed in Iraq. Approximately 550 Danish troops were stationed in Iraq from 2004 and into 2007, first at "Camp Dannevang" and later at "Camp Einherjer", both near Basra. When the contingent of troops left around August 2007, it was not replaced and Denmark shifted its focus to non-military support around Baghdad. The official reason provided is that the Iraqi government should now be able to handle security in the Basra area. Critics of Rasmussen argued that the withdrawal was motivated by decreasing domestic support for the war.

France

Main article: France–United States relations
President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac, May 2002

France with President Jacques Chirac deployed French forces to NATO's U.S. led-coalition war in Afghanistan in 2001, but relations with France became strained after Chirac emerged as a leading voice against Bush and Tony Blair in 2003 during the organization and deployment of American and British forces participating in a military coalition to forcibly remove the government of Iraq controlled by the Ba'ath Party under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. Despite British and American pressure, Chirac threatened to veto, at that given point, a resolution in the UN Security Council that would authorise the use of military force to rid Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction, and rallied other governments to his position. "Iraq today does not represent an immediate threat that justifies an immediate war", Chirac said on March 18, 2003. French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin acquired much of his popularity for his speech against the war at the United Nations (UN).

Germany

Main article: Germany–United States relations
President Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, October 2001
President Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, November 2007

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder sent forces to Afghanistan as part of NATO operations of the U.S. led war in Afghanistan because due to Germany having a long experience with terrorism itself, Schröder declared solidarity with the United States after the September 11 attacks in 2001. When Schröder left office, Germany had 2,000 troops in Afghanistan, the largest contingent from any nation other than the United States, UK, France, Canada and after two years Afghanistan.

However, relations with Germany became strained, after Schröder later spoke out strongly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq and refused any military assistance in that enterprise. Schröder's stance caused political friction between the US and Germany, in particular because he used this topic for his 2002 election campaign. Schröder's stance set the stage for alleged anti-American statements by members of the SPD. The parliamentary leader of the SPD, Ludwig Stiegler, compared Bush to Julius Caesar while Schröder's Minister of Justice, Herta Däubler-Gmelin, likened Bush's foreign policy to that of Adolf Hitler. Schröder's critics accused him of enhancing, and campaigning on, anti-American sentiments in Germany. After his 2002 re-election, Schröder and Bush rarely met and their animosity was seen as a widening political gap between the US and Europe. Bush stated in his memoirs that Schröder initially promised to support the Iraq war but changed his mind with the upcoming German elections and public opinion strongly against the invasion, to which Schröder responded saying that Bush was "not telling the truth". When asked in March 2003 if he were at all self-critical about his position on Iraq, Schröder replied, "I very much regret there were excessive statements" from himself and former members of his government (which capitalised on the war's unpopularity).

Italy

Main article: Italy–United States relations
President Bush and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, October 2005

President Bush enjoyed a strong relationship with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Italy, with Berlusconi in office, became a solid ally of the United States due to his support in deploying Italian troops in the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War following the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the war on terror. On January 30, 2003, Berlusconi signed The letter of the eight supporting US. policy on Iraq.

Berlusconi, in his meetings with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and President Bush, said that he pushed for "a clear turnaround in the Iraqi situation" and for a quick handover of sovereignty to the government chosen by the Iraqi people. Italy had some 3,200 troops deployed in Southern Iraq, the third largest contingent there after the American and British forces. When Romano Prodi became Prime Minister, Italian troops were gradually withdrawn from Iraq in the second half of 2006 with the last soldiers leaving the country in December of that year.

NATO

Further information: NATO

In November 2002, at a NATO summit Bush stated "Our NATO alliance faces dangers very different from those it was formed to confront. Yet, never has our need for collective defense been more urgent. The Soviet Union is gone, but freedom still has enemies. We're threatened by terrorism, bred within failed states, it's present within our own cities. We're threatened by the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons which are produced by outlaw regimes and could be delivered either by missile or terrorist cell. For terrorists and terrorist states, every free nation is a potential target, including the free nations of Europe".

Bush then stated "To meet all of this century's emerging threats from terror camps in remote regions to hidden laboratories of outlaw regimes, NATO must develop new military capabilities. NATO forces must become better able to fight side by side. Those forces must be more mobile and more swiftly deployed. The allies need more special operations forces, better precision strike capabilities, and more modern command structures. Few NATO members will have state-of-the-art capabilities in all of these areas; I recognize that. But every nation should develop some. Ours is a military alliance, and every member must make a military contribution to that alliance. For some allies, this will require higher defense spending. For all of us, it will require more effective defense spending, with each nation adding the tools and technologies to fight and win a new kind of war".

Bush then stated "The United States proposes the creation of a NATO response force that will bring together well-equipped, highly ready air, ground and sea forces from NATO allies – old and new. This force will be prepared to deploy on short notice wherever it is needed. A NATO response force will take time to create and we should begin that effort here in Prague. Yet, security against new threats requires more than just new capabilities. Free nations must accept our shared obligations to keep the peace. The world needs the nations of this continent to be active in the defense of freedom; not inward-looking or isolated by indifference. Ignoring dangers or excusing aggression may temporarily avert conflict, but they don't bring true peace".

Poland

Main article: Poland–United States relations
President Bush and Polish Prime Minister Jarosław Kaczyński, 2007

President Bush enjoyed a strong relationship with Poland, As well as Poland deploying its forces in supporting the global war on terror, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and coalition efforts in Iraq (where Polish contingent was one of the largest). Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller's government, together with President Kwaśniewski, made a decision in March 2003 to join the coalition of the willing and deploy Polish troops to Iraq, targeting at overthrowing Saddam Hussein's government. Leszek Miller was also a co-signatory of "the letter of 8", signed by eight European prime ministers, supporting the US position on Iraq. Already in 2002 Miller gave permission to the U.S. government to run a secret CIA prison at Stare Kiejkuty military training center, three hours North of Warsaw. Years later he is facing accusations of acting anti-constitutionally by having tolerated the imprisonment and torture of prisoners.

Russia

Main article: Russia–United States relations § Putin and George W. Bush (2001–2009)
President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, July 2001

A planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe poses no threat to Russia, Bush, said April 1, 2008, responding to concerns that the U.S. might use interceptor missiles for offensive purposes. His comments came before he left Kyiv for a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, that is expected to highlight divisions over the plan. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bush failed to resolve their differences over U.S. plans for the planned missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic, on their meeting in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi on April 6, 2008, but said they had agreed a "strategic framework" to guide future U.S.-Russian relations, in which Russia and the U.S. said they recognized that the era in which each had considered the other to be a "strategic threat or enemy" was over. Before leaving April 1, 2008, for Bucharest, Bush told that Russia will not be able to veto Georgia's or Ukraine's inclusion into NATO. Bush said that both countries should be able to take part in NATO's Membership Action Plan, which is designed to help aspiring countries meet the requirements of joining the alliance. Bush added that Ukraine already contributes to NATO missions, specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Ukraine also has demonstrated a commitment to democracy. Bush denied that the United States might ease off on membership plans for Ukraine and Georgia if Russia acquiesces on the missile shield.

Spain

Main article: Spain–United States relations
President Bush and Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, February 2003

Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar actively supported Bush in the war on terrorism by first deploying Spanish forces in the U.S.-led coalition War in Afghanistan in 2001. Aznar then met with Bush in a private meeting before 2003 invasion of Iraq to discuss the situation of in the United Nations Security Council. The Spanish newspaper El País leaked a partial transcript of the meeting. Aznar actively encouraged and supported the Bush administration's foreign policy and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and was one of the signatories of The letter of the eight defending it on the basis of secret intelligence allegedly containing evidence of the Iraqi government's nuclear proliferation. Aznar then deployed Spanish forces to the Iraq War as part of Multi-National Force – Iraq coalition forces. The majority of the Spanish population, including some members of Aznar's Partido Popular, were against the war.

After the Spanish general election in 2004, in which the Spanish socialists received more votes than expected as a result, besides other issues, of the government's handling of the 2004 Madrid train bombings, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero succeeded Aznar as Prime Minister. Before being elected, Zapatero had opposed the American policy in regard to Iraq pursued by Aznar. During the electoral campaign Zapatero had promised to withdraw the troops if control in Iraq was not passed to the United Nations after June 30 (the ending date of the initial Spanish military agreement with the multinational coalition that had overthrown Saddam Hussein). On April 19, 2004, Zapatero announced the withdrawal of the 1300 Spanish troops in Iraq.

The decision aroused international support worldwide, though the American Government claimed that the terrorists could perceive it as "a victory obtained due to 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings". John Kerry, then Democratic party candidate for the American presidency, asked Zapatero not to withdraw the Spanish soldiers. Some months after withdrawing the troops, the Zapatero government agreed to increase the number of Spanish soldiers in Afghanistan and to send troops to Haiti to show the Spanish Government's willingness to spend resources on international missions approved by the UN.

United Kingdom

Main article: United Kingdom–United States relations
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 2003

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair enjoyed a strong relationship. On September 20, 2001, during his address to a joint session of congress, President Bush declared "America has no truer friend than Great Britain". Blair deployed British forces to NATO's war in Afghanistan, second only to the US in sending forces. Blair then took the lead (against the opposition of France, Canada, Germany, China, and Russia) in advocating the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Blair was also one of the signatories of The letter of the eight on January 30, 2003. Again Britain under Blair was second only to the US in sending forces to Iraq. Both sides wound down after 2009, and withdrew their last troops in 2011. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair provided sustained mutual political and diplomatic support and won votes in Congress and parliament against their critics at home.

Greater Middle East

Afghanistan

Further information: United States invasion of Afghanistan and War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) Main article: Afghanistan–United States relations
President Bush addressing the media at the Pentagon, September 17, 2001

In his address to a joint session of congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush condemned Osama bin Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda, and issued an ultimatum to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where bin Laden was operating, to "hand over the terrorists, or ... share in their fate".

On October 7, 2001, the US led a NATO invasion of Afghanistan, instigating the global war on terror and what became the early phase of the US led-coalition War in Afghanistan. President Bush confirmed the strikes in his address to the nation, Bush stated that "Taliban military sites and terrorist training grounds would be targeted". "Food, medicine and supplies would be dropped to the starving and suffering men, women and children of Afghanistan". NATO forces scoured the region for 9/11 alleged mastermind Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network Al-Qaeda and drove the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban regime, which was sheltering and providing sanctuary for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, from power. However once Bin Laden left Afghanistan and took up sanctuary in Pakistan, Bush said that he was "not that concerned about him" as the Al-Qaeda leader continued to plot attacks against America.

The main goals of the war were to defeat the Taliban, drive al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan, and capture key al-Qaeda leaders. In December 2001, the Pentagon reported that the Taliban had been defeated, but cautioned that the war would go on to continue weakening Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. Later that month the UN had installed the Afghan Transitional Administration chaired by Hamid Karzai. the U.S. under the Bush administration supported the new government of Karzai by maintaining a high level of troops to establish the authority of his government as well as combat Taliban insurgency. Both Afghanistan and the United States resumed diplomatic ties in late 2001. In 2002, based on UNICEF figures, Nicholas Kristof reported that "our invasion of Afghanistan may end up saving one million lives over the next decade" as the result of improved healthcare and greater access to humanitarian aid.

Efforts to kill or capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden failed as he escaped a battle in December 2001 in the mountainous region of Tora Bora, which the Bush administration later acknowledged to have resulted from a failure to commit enough U.S. ground troops. It was not until May 2011, two years after Bush left office, that bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces under the Obama administration. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin laden's second-in-command, took charge of al-Qaeda until he was killed in a targeted drone strike under the Biden administration.

Despite the initial success in driving the Taliban from power in Kabul, by early 2003 the Taliban was regrouping, amassing new funds and recruits. The 2005 failure of Operation Red Wings showed that the Taliban had returned. In 2006, the Taliban insurgency appeared larger, fiercer and better organized than expected, with large-scale allied offensives such as Operation Mountain Thrust attaining limited success. As a result, in March 2007, the Bush administration deployed another more than 3,500 troops to Afghanistan to expand the fight against the Taliban.

In June 2004, United States Forces began Drone strikes in Pakistan during the administration of President Bush, along the Federal Tribal Areas against Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants.

Major criticisms started to emerge from international human rights organizations about the United States policy of detaining alleged Taliban and Al-Qaeda combatants and refusing to grant these detainees their rights as prisoners of war as detailed in the Geneva Conventions. Other allegations stated that numerous captured Taliban fighters possessed no link to either Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Instead these fighters had the misfortune of being forcibly recruited into the Taliban military during the American invasion. The practice of impressment was systematic of the Taliban regime which would raid villages for able bodied men to serve on the front lines for a specific time period.

President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, March 2006

In 2005, the United States and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement committing both nations to a long-term relationship. On March 1, 2006, Bush along with his wife Laura made a visit to Afghanistan where they greeted US soldiers, met with Afghan officials and later appeared at a special inauguration ceremony at the U.S. Embassy.

The United States under the Bush administration took the leading role in the overall reconstruction of Afghanistan by providing billions of dollars to the Afghan National Security Forces, building national roads, government and educational institutions.

President Bush and his administration labelled the detainees as "unlawful combatants" deemed to pose a threat to the U.S. or to have information about terrorist structures, plans and tactics. The administration has said that such detainees can be held for "as long as necessary". Critics claim that anyone accused of a crime has a right to a fair trial and question whether people like Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, can be called an "unlawful combatant". In the case of Zaeef, they claim he cannot be a "combatant" because he was crippled during the Soviet occupation and that he wasn't "unlawful" because he was ambassador of his country. The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the war against America by Al-Qaeda is ongoing, that it is unconventional, and that the "battlefield" extends into the U.S. itself. According to the declassified April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, "United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of Al-Qaeda and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa'ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes Al-Qaeda, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts."

On September 6, 2006, President Bush confirmed, for the first time, that the CIA had held "high-value detainees" for interrogation in secret prisons around the world. He also announced that fourteen Al-Qaeda senior captives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were being transferred from CIA custody, to military custody, at Guantanamo Bay detention camp and that these fourteen captives could now expect to face charges before Guantanamo military commissions.

Although the Bush administration released over 100 detainees and authorized military tribunals for the rest, the legal framework governing them has been slow in the making. According to Human Rights Watch, as of January 2004, "the public still not know who the detainees are, what they allegedly done, and whether and when they will be charged with crimes or released. There been no hearings to determine the legal status of detainees and no judicial review—in short, no legal process at all." In February 2002 the United States began releasing several dozen detainees to their home countries, including many British and Pakistani nationals. The British detainees were briefly investigated and cleared of any British charges within 24 hours of their arrival.

President Bush sits with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as they host a working dinner at the White House with President Hamid Karzai (left) of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and President Pervez Musharraf, of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, September 27, 2006. White House photo by Eric Draper.

The domestic political equation changed in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001, attacks, bolstering the influence of the neoconservative faction of the administration and throughout Washington. The conflict in Afghanistan, and the events that had launched the war, coincided with a reassessment of foreign policy by the administration, which President Bush articulated in his first State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002. Previously, September 11 had underscored the threat of attacks from terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, as opposed to nation-states, and U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan targeted the ruling Taliban militia for having harbored al-Qaeda sponsor Osama bin Laden. Now speaking of an "axis of evil" comprising Iran, North Korea, and Iraq in his address to Congress, Bush claimed that he was preparing to open a new front in the U.S. global "war on terrorism".

Bahrain

Main articles: Bahrain–United States relations and Bahrain–United States Free Trade Agreement
President Bush and King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain, November 2004

President Bush designated Bahrain a Major non-NATO ally in 2002. President Bush signed the Bahrain–United States Free Trade Agreement into law on January 11, 2006. The FTA was implemented on August 1, 2006, and will reduce certain barriers of trade between the two countries.

Egypt

Main article: Egypt–United States relations
President Bush and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, June 2002

President Bush enjoyed relations with Egypt under President Hosni Mubarak, However, later on Egyptian–American relations have become a little tense. This is due to a great extent to the Egyptian unwillingness to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in peace stabilization missions. Egypt strongly backed the U.S. in its war against international terrorism after the September 11 attacks of 2001 but refused to send troops to Afghanistan during the war and after it. Egypt also opposed U.S. military intervention of March 2003 in Iraq through their membership in the African Union and the Arab League, continued to oppose U.S. occupation of the country after the war and further refused to comply with U.S. requests to send troops to the country even under a UN umbrella.

President Mubarak spoke out against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict should have been resolved first. He also said the war would cause "100 Bin Ladens". However, as president he did not support an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq because he believed it would probably lead to chaos.

The issue of participation in the post-war construction efforts in Iraq has been controversial in Egypt and in the Arab world as a whole. Opponents say that the war was illegal and it is necessary to wait until Iraq has legal representative government to deal with it. On the other hand, supporters of participation argued that the responsibility to protect Iraqis and to help them in time of crisis should prevail and guide the Egyptian action in Iraq, despite the fact that the Iraqis do not agree.

US officials quoted in USA Today described Egyptian security and military as having shared "valuable intelligence" and providing other "useful counterterrorism assistance", in the 1980, 90s and "particularly in the decade since the 9/11 attacks". Under President Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, the U.S. has had "an important partnership" in counterterrorism.

Iran

Main articles: Iran–United States relations § 2001–2005: George W. Bush administration, first term; and Iran–United States relations § 2005–2009: George W. Bush administration, second term

In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush labeled Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil", where he stated "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom". Bush also accused Iran of aiding terrorist organizations. In June 2005, Bush issued Executive Order 13382 freezing the assets of individuals connected with Iran's nuclear program. In 2006, Iran re-opened three of its nuclear facilities, potentially allowing it to begin the process of building a nuclear bomb. After the resumption of the Iranian nuclear program, many within the U.S. military and foreign policy community speculated that Bush might attempt to impose regime change on Iran. This was evident in the Iran Freedom and Support Act legislation bill signed by President Bush on September 30, 2006, that appropriated $10 million and directed the President of the United States to spend that money in support of "pro-democracy groups" opposed to the Iranian government. Opponents claimed the bill was a first step towards a US-led invasion of the country. In December 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1737, which imposed sanctions on Iran in order to curb its nuclear program.

There has been much controversy surrounding Iran and its nuclear program in the past few years. The controversy centers on the Iranian enrichment of uranium. Iran officials have stated that they are enriching the uranium to fuel civilian reactors as permitted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international agreements, but the processes that Iran has been developing to reprocess and enrich uranium are also critical components for the development of a nuclear weapon.

Since there exists some circumstantial evidence that Iran, classified by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism, may have intentions of pursuing a weapons program, the Iranian nuclear program became a major foreign policy of the United States.

Iraq

Main article: Iraq–United States relations Further information: 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iraq War

Beginning with his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, President Bush began publicly focusing attention on Iraq, which he labeled as part of an "axis of evil" allied with terrorists and posing "a grave and growing danger" to U.S. interests through possession of weapons of mass destruction. Bush declared, "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." Announcing that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government, he claimed, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." and claimed "This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children". and that "This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors". and that "This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world".

In the latter half of 2002, CIA reports contained assertions of Saddam Hussein's intent of reconstituting nuclear weapons programs, not properly accounting for Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions. Contentions that the Bush administration manipulated or exaggerated the threat and evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities would eventually become a major point of criticism for the president.

Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq on September 12, 2002, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly.

In October 2002, Congress passed a legislation titled the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq signed by President Bush on October 16, 2002. authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government.

On November 20, 2002, at a NATO summit in Prague, Czech Republic, President Bush and President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Havel held a joint news conference, where Bush stated "It's very important for our NATO nations as well as all free nations to work collectively to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms", "However, should he choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him and at that point in time, all our nations will be able choose whether or not they want to participate."

In late 2002 and early 2003, Bush urged the United Nations to enforce Iraqi disarmament mandates, precipitating a diplomatic crisis. In November 2002, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, but were advised by the U.S. to depart the country four days prior to the U.S. invasion, despite their requests for more time to complete their tasks. The U.S. initially sought a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force but dropped the bid for UN approval due to vigorous opposition from several countries. The Bush administration's claim that the Iraq War was part of the war on terror had been questioned and contested by political analysts.

In his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush declared Saddam Hussein was the worst, and "a brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States." In this context, Bush also said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

Although no agreement on authorizing force could be found within the United Nations Security Council, the war was ultimately launched in March 2003, after Bush, in a speech on March 17, 2003, effectively had set out a declaration of his objectives as "assuring national security" of the United States, and "no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms". Bush also issued an ultimatum stating, "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."

President Bush addresses the world about U.S. intentions regarding Saddam Hussein and Iraq, March 17, 2003
President Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office, to announce the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 19, 2003

President Bush in his address to the nation from the Oval Office on March 19, 2003, officially announced the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, here he stated "On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense". The military action was dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

President Bush, with Naval Flight Officer Lieutenant Ryan Philips, after landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln prior to his Mission Accomplished speech, May 1, 2003
President Bush paying a surprise visit to Baghdad International Airport, November 27, 2003

More than 20 nations (most notably the United Kingdom), designated the "coalition of the willing" joined the United States in invading Iraq. They launched the invasion on March 20, 2003. The Iraqi military was quickly defeated. The capital, Baghdad, fell on April 9, 2003, which resulted in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime 24 year rule. On May 1, Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. The initial success of U.S. operations increased his popularity, but the U.S. and allied forces faced a growing insurgency led by sectarian groups; Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech was later criticized as premature. President Bush then appointed Paul Bremer Presidential Envoy to Iraq on May 9, 2003, and administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, his appointment declared him subject to the "authority, direction and control" of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. On December 14, 2003, President Bush announced the capture of Saddam Hussein, after U.S. forces captured him in Operation Red Dawn and said that Saddam would "face the justice he denied to millions. For the Ba'athist holdouts responsible for the violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held". From 2004 until 2007, the situation in Iraq deteriorated further, with some observers arguing that there was a full-scale civil war in Iraq. Bush's policies met with criticism, including demands domestically to set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq. The 2006 report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker, concluded that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating". While Bush admitted there were strategic mistakes made in regards to the stability of Iraq, he maintained he would not change the overall Iraq strategy. According to Iraq Body Count, some 251,000 Iraqis have been killed in the civil war following the U.S.-led invasion, including at least 163,841 civilians as of 2016.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, July 2006

In January 2005, free, democratic elections were held in Iraq for the first time in 50 years. According to Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie, "This is the greatest day in the history of this country." Bush praised the event as well, saying that the Iraqis "have taken rightful control of their country's destiny". This led to the election of Jalal Talabani as president and Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister of Iraq. A referendum to approve a constitution in Iraq was held in October 2005, supported by most Shiites and many Kurds.

In June 2006, President Bush announced the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, after U.S. forces killed him in an airstrike and stated that through his every action Zarqawi sought to defeat America and its coalition partners by turning Iraq into a safe haven for al-Qaeda. Bush also stated, "Now Zarqawi has met his end and this violent man will never murder again."

On January 10, 2007, Bush announced a surge of 21,500 more troops for Iraq, as well as a job program for Iraqis, more reconstruction proposals, and $1.2 billion (equivalent to $1.8 billion in 2023) for these programs. On January 23, 2007, in the 2007 State of the Union Address, Bush announced "deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq". On May 1, 2007, Bush used his second-ever veto to reject a bill setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, saying the debate over the conflict was "understandable" but insisting that a continued U.S. presence there was crucial.

President Bush announces the new strategy on Iraq from the White House Library, January 10, 2007
President Bush and a group of high-ranking generals and advisers at Al Asad Airbase in Iraq, September 2007
Bush "shoeing" incident in Baghdad, December 2008

In March 2008, Bush praised the Iraqi government's "bold decision" to launch the Battle of Basra against the Mahdi Army, calling it "a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq". He said he would carefully weigh recommendations from his commanding General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about how to proceed after the end of the military buildup in the summer of 2008. He also praised the Iraqis' legislative achievements, including a pension law, a revised de-Baathification law, a new budget, an amnesty law, and a provincial powers measure that, he said, set the stage for the Iraqi elections. By July 2008, American troop deaths had reached their lowest number since the war began, and due to increased stability in Iraq, Bush announced the withdrawal of additional American forces. During his last visit in Iraq in December 2008, Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw both of his shoes to Bush amid official press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Zaidi yelled the strikes on Bush as "farewell kiss" and "for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq."

In March 2010, Center for Public Integrity released a report that President Bush's administration had made more than 900 false pretenses in a two-year period about alleged threat of Iraq against the United States, as his rationale to engage war in Iraq. Senior war crimes prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz has suggested that Bush should be tried in the International Criminal Court for '269 war crime charges' related to the Iraq War.

President Bush walks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, June 13, 2006. During his unannounced trip to Iraq, President Bush thanked the Prime Minister, telling him, "I'm convinced you will succeed, and so will the world."

Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, notably from many on the United Nations Security Council, who argued that the war broke international law. (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" and that "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution", while Article III states that the judicial power of the US Supreme Court extends to "all ... Treaties made". This makes a violation of international law also a violation of the "supreme Law of The Land" of America, and withholds immunity from government officials, including the president.) See Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq and The UN Security Council and the Iraq war. For its part, the U.S. administration soon presented a list of countries called the coalition of the willing which supported its position. A later aspect of the criticism has been the death toll in Iraq; over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 4000 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the beginning of the war mainly during the ensuing insurgency and civil war. In 2004, public assertions by Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke raised questions about the credibility of the Bush administration's pre-war claims. Both presented evidence that questioned how focused the Bush administration was on combating Al-Qaeda (which was operating out of Afghanistan, not Iraq) before September 11. Specifically, O'Neill presented classified and unclassified documents indicating that planning for a war with Iraq and the subsequent occupation began at the first National Security Council meeting and continued with each meeting. Clarke presented testimony and witnesses concerning how Bush and much of his cabinet tried to find excuses to attack Iraq immediately after September 11, such as associating it with September 11, claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and claiming that Iraq posed an imminent threat, which implied that a war against Iraq would be legal by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Testimony at the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (ongoing during March 2004) has included claims of how much of the Bush administration's immediate post-9/11 emphasis on Iraq was appropriate and proportional to the overall picture of terrorism, especially in light of the administration's subsequent decision to pursue military action in Afghanistan first, the fact that organizations accused of 9/11 are in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and that no links have been found between these organizations and Saddam Hussein. The commission's report is expected to be released before the presidential election. On June 16, 2004, the USA's 9/11 Commission filed an initial report on its findings, stating that it found "no credible evidence" of a "collaborative relationship" between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda or of Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

The inability of the U.S. to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has led to greater domestic criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. Several of the statements that Bush and his administration made leading up to the war in Iraq, especially those involving claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, have been criticized as misleading or inaccurate. Particularly controversial was Bush's claim in the 2003 State of the Union Address that British Intelligence had discovered that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. Officials and diplomats disputed the evidence for this claim, especially after a document describing an attempted purchase from Niger, which was presented to the United Nations Security Council by Colin Powell, was found to be a forgery. This led to a public embarrassment for George Tenet, the director of the CIA, as well as the Valerie Plame scandal. Much criticism on these issues has come from political opponents of Bush. The Iraq war was a significant issue in the 2004 Democratic primary, including the campaigns of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich.

However, State Department documents declassified in 2006 cite hundreds of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Nonetheless, it was soon quickly revealed that the particular weapons in question were WMD Saddam had obtained during the Iran-Iraq war, which had long since become stale and non-functional

On March 24, 2004, Bush joked about the weapons of mass destruction issue at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner. While showing slides of himself searching the Oval Office, he joked, "those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere ... nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?" Some found it tasteless of him to be joking about the issue. Others defended the joke as being in line with the self-deprecatory sort of humor that has come to be expected of presidents when they speak at that event.

On September 26, 2006, Bush declassified the key judgments of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate. The estimate, titled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, states the following: "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

On December 1, 2008, during an interview with ABC World News, Bush stated "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein". "I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack' ... I didn't anticipate war." and on early withdrawal of troops, "It was a tough call, particularly, since a lot of people were advising for me to get out of Iraq, or pull back in Iraq".

On December 14, 2008, during a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush was publicly insulted when an Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at the President as Bush and al-Maliki were about to shake hands. The offender, later identified as television correspondent Muntadar al-Zeidi, leapt from his chair and quickly hurled first one shoe and then the other at the president, who was about 20 feet away. Bush successfully dodged both projectiles which were aimed at his head. Zeidi worked for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo. He was wrestled to the ground by security officials and then hauled away, moaning as they left the room. "So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?" Bush said, comparing the action to political protests in the United States. Al-Baghdadia's Baghdad manager told the Associated Press he had no idea what prompted his reporter to go on the attack. The Iraqi government has demanded an on-air apology from his employer.

Israel

Main article: Israel–United States relations § George W. Bush administration (2001–2009)
Mahmoud Abbas, President Bush, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after reading statement to the press during the closing moments of the Red Sea Summit in Aqaba, Jordan, June 4, 2003
President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, May 2006

President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon established good relations in their March and June 2001 meetings. On October 4, 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks, Sharon accused the Bush administration of appeasing the Palestinians at Israel's expense in a bid for Arab support for the US anti-terror campaign. The White House said that the remark was unacceptable. Rather than apologize for the remark, Sharon said that the United States failed to understand him. Also, the United States criticized the Israeli practice of assassinating Palestinians believed to be engaged in terrorism, which appeared to some Israelis to be inconsistent with the US policy of pursuing Osama bin Laden "dead or alive".

In 2003, in the middle of the Second Intifada and a sharp economic downturn in Israel, the US provided Israel with $9 billion in conditional loan guarantees made available through 2011 and negotiated each year at the US–Israel Joint Economic Development Group.

President Bush noted in an April 14, 2002, Memorandum which came to be called "the Bush Roadmap" (and which established the parameters for subsequent Israel-Palestinian negotiations) the need to take into account changed "realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers", as well as Israel's security concerns, asserting that "It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." He later emphasized that, within these parameters, details of the borders were subjects for negotiations between the parties.

Bush had maintained a desire to resume the peace process in Israel, and had openly proclaimed his desire for a Palestinian state to be created before 2005. He outlined a road map for peace in cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, which featured compromises that had to be made by both sides before Palestinian statehood could become a reality.

One particular proposal was his insistence on new Palestinian leadership; a stance that saw the appointment of the first ever Palestinian Prime Minister on April 29, 2003. Bush had denounced Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat for continued support of violence and militant groups. The road map for peace stalled within months after more violence and the resignation of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

By the end of 2003, neither side had done what was outlined in the plan. In April 2004 Bush announced that he endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip but retain Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He also announced agreement with Sharon's policy of denying the right of return. This led to condemnation from Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Arab and European governments and was a major departure from previous U.S. foreign policy in the region. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak commented Bush's policies had led to an 'unprecedented hatred' of Arabs for the U.S.

During the 2006 Lebanon War, On July 14, 2006, the US Congress was notified of a potential sale of $210 million worth of jet fuel to Israel. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency noted that the sale of the JP-8 fuel, should it be completed, will "enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory", and that "The jet fuel will be consumed while the aircraft is in use to keep peace and security in the region". It was reported on July 24 that the United States was in the process of providing Israel with "bunker buster" bombs, which would allegedly be used to target the leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah guerilla group and destroy its trenches.

American media also questioned whether Israel violated an agreement not to use cluster bombs on civilian targets. Although many of the cluster bombs used were advanced M-85 munitions developed by Israel Military Industries, Israel also used older munitions purchased from the US. Evidence during the conflict, hitting civilian areas, although the civilian population had mostly fled. Israel asserts that civilian damage was unavoidable, as Hezbollah ensconced itself in highly populated areas. Simultaneously, indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket fire turned many of its northern towns into virtual ghost towns, in violation of international law. Many bomblets remained undetonated after the war, causing hazard for Lebanese civilians. Israel said that it had not violated any international law because cluster bombs are not illegal and were used only on military targets.

On July 15, 2006, the United Nations Security Council again rejected pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the US was the only member of out the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all.

On July 19, 2006, the Bush administration rejected calls for an immediate ceasefire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that certain conditions had to be met, not specifying what they were. John Bolton, US Ambassador to the United Nations, rejected the call for a ceasefire, on the grounds that such an action addressed the conflict only superficially: "The notion that you just declare a ceasefire and act as if that is going to solve the problem, I think is simplistic."

On July 26, 2006, foreign ministers from the US, Europe, and the Middle East that met in Rome vowed "to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a ceasefire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities". However, the US maintained strong support for the Israeli campaign, and the conference's results were reported to have fallen short of Arab and European leaders' expectations.

After the 2006 Lebanon war ended, President Bush said that Hezbollah was responsible for starting the war, and that the group suffered a defeat at the hands of Israel. He dismissed claims of victory by Hezbollah leaders, asking: "how can you claim victory when at one time you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese Army and an international force?" In his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, Bush wrote that Israel had weakened Hezbollah and secured its northern border, but that Israel's "shaky military performance" cost it international credibility. He also said that Israel "mishandled its opportunity", and that some of the sites it attacked were of "questionable military value".

In September 2008, The Guardian reported that the U.S. vetoed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities the previous May.

Jordan

Main articles: Jordan–United States relations and Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement
President Bush and King Abdullah II of Jordan, September 2001

On September 28, 2001, President Bush signed the Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement and it was the first free trade agreement (FTA) the United States signed with an Arab country (and the fourth FTA overall behind Israel, Canada, and Mexico). However, King Abdullah advised Washington against the 2003 Iraq War, but later allegedly gave the invading coalition some degree of covert and tacit support, despite the overwhelming opinion of his own public. The Jordanian government publicly opposed the war against Iraq. The King stressed to the United States and European Union that a diplomatic solution, in accordance with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 1284 (1999) and 1409 (2002), was the only appropriate model for resolving the conflict between Iraq and the UN. In August 2002 he told the Washington Post that an attempt to invade Iraq would be a "tremendous mistake" and that it could "throw the whole area into turmoil".

Kuwait

Main article: Kuwait–United States relations

Kuwait was the only major regional ally that supported the U.S.-led 2003 Invasion of Iraq, because Kuwait had hostility towards Saddam's Iraq stemmed from the events surrounding the first Persian Gulf War. The public appeared to consider Saddam to be as much of a threat in 2003 as he was in the past, and were particularly interested in attempts to repatriate many Kuwaiti citizens who had disappeared during the Gulf War, and were presumably languishing in Iraqi jails up until Saddam's fall from power. Kuwait also allowed the U.S. to launch the 2003 invasion of Iraq from the U.S. military bases stationed in Kuwait. However, Kuwait did not deploy forces to the Iraq War. In 2004, President Bush designated Kuwait as a Major non-NATO ally

Lebanon

Main article: Lebanon–United States relations

President Bush stated Lebanon "can serve as a great example (to other countries) of what is possible" in the Middle East".

In April 2006, following a meeting at the White House with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, Mr. Bush said that the United States "strongly supports a free and independent and sovereign Lebanon". He recalled the 2005 Cedar Revolution, in which hundreds of thousands of Lebanese protested against and forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from their country.

Prime Minister Siniora stated "We took great joy in seeing the Cedar Revolution. We understand that the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the street to express their desire to be free required courage, and we support the desire of the people to have a government responsive to their needs and a government that is free, truly free."

President Bush recalled Lebanon's "great tradition" of serving "as a model of entrepreneurship and prosperity". He also called for a full investigation into the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, which helped spur the Cedar Revolution.

Prime Minister Siniora said the United States "has been of great support" to Lebanon, which has gone through "major changes" in the past year-and-a-half" and that "Lebanon has really been committing itself that we want the change to happen to in a democratic and a peaceful manner, but at the same time, to really stay course on course; that we are there to meet the expectations of the people to have a united, liberal, free country, and, at the same time, prosperous economy. ... The United States has been of great support to Lebanon. I am really convinced that President Bush and the United States will stand beside Lebanon to have Lebanon stay as a free, democratic, united, and sovereign state."

"Out of the tough times has been through", said President Bush, "will rise a state that shows that it's possible for people of religious difference to live side-by-side in peace; to show that it's possible for people to put aside past histories to live together in. ... peace and hope and opportunity."

Libya

Main article: Libya–United States relations

After its public announcement on December 19, 2003, Libya announced its intention to rid itself of WMD and MTCR-class missile programs. the Gaddafi government cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In recognition of these actions, the U.S. under the Bush administration began the process of normalizing relations with Libya. The U.S. terminated the applicability of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act to Libya and President Bush signed an Executive Order on September 20, 2004, terminating the national emergency with respect to Libya and ending IEEPA-based economic sanctions. This action had the effect of unblocking assets blocked under the Executive Order sanctions. Restrictions on cargo aviation and third-party code-sharing have been lifted, as have restrictions on passenger aviation. Certain export controls remain in place.

U.S. diplomatic personnel reopened the U.S. Interest Section in Tripoli on February 8, 2004. In the same month, the U.S. State Department lifted the 23-year travel ban on Libya. The U.S. Interest Section was upgraded to a U.S. Liaison Office on June 28, 2004, and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006. The establishment in 2005 of an American School in Tripoli demonstrates the increased presence of Americans in Libya, and the continuing normalization of bilateral relations. Libya re-established its diplomatic presence in Washington with the opening of an Interest Section on July 8, 2004, which was subsequently upgraded to a Liaison Office in December 2004 and to a full embassy on May 31, 2006.

On May 15, 2006, the US State Department announced its intention to rescind Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in recognition of the fact that Libya had met the statutory requirements for such a move: it had not provided any support for acts of international terrorism in the preceding six-month period, and had provided assurances that it would not do so in the future. On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In July 2007, Mr. Gene Cretz was nominated by President Bush as ambassador to Libya. The Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate held Cretz's confirmation hearing on Wednesday, September 25, 2008. The Libyan government satisfied its responsibility and paid the remaining amount of money it owed (total of $1.5 billion) to the victims of several acts of terrorism on Friday, October 31, 2008. That same year, the United States and Libya also signed a bilateral Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation.

Morocco

Main articles: Morocco–United States relations and Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement
President Bush and King Mohammed VI of Morocco, April 2002

In the 21st century, both countries have become close allies in the global "war on terror". Morocco was among the first Arab and Islamic states to denounce the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States and declare solidarity with the American people in fighting terrorism. After the September 11 attacks, Morocco has been instrumental in supporting the United States. For example, King Mohammed VI presided over a mass service in support of the victims of the September 11 attacks. Additionally, security cooperation between the two countries is well developed. King Mohammed VI collaborates with U.S. intelligence and security officials in providing intelligence and preventing terrorist attacks in the Straits of Gibraltar. In January 2004, during the Bush administration, Morocco was designated a major non-NATO ally as a reward for its collaboration. Morocco remains one of America's oldest and closest allies, a status affirmed by Morocco's zero-tolerance policy towards Al-Qaeda and their affiliated groups. Morocco also assisted the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency with questioning al-Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere

Morocco also plays a pivotal role in the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative to contain Salafist groups in the Saharan and in the Sahel regions of West Africa. Likewise, when Casablanca was the victim of terrorist bombings on May 16, 2003, the U.S. government offered Morocco the full resources of its military and intelligence community. Furthermore, the CIA has utilized Morocco as a source for recruiting Arabic-speaking spies.

The United States and Morocco signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on June 15, 2004, which went into effect on January 1, 2006. The Kingdom of Morocco submitted an official statement on the matter for a U.S. House of Representatives congressional hearing in June 2007. It read, in part, "Morocco is pleased to see that the United States has over the last several years very substantially increased its engagement in the Maghreb. Morocco is a longtime partner of the United States and our experience with your great nation over the last two centuries has persuaded us that there is much that we can accomplish together. The FTA between Morocco and USA is a great opportunity for US companies to increase their market shares". The FTA also stipulates broad labor protections for both countries, with a dual focus on transparency, and maintaining said protections while promoting economic growth. The explicitly defined protections laid out in the Labor section of the agreement are essentially the general rights promoted by the International Labor Organization in their 1998 declaration; however, the Labor section also provides a framework by which the countries may cooperate to extend labor rights further. The developments listed as potentially pursuable include the establishment of "social safety net programs", regulation of "working conditions", and "timely" creation of "labor market statistics". In 2008, U.S. direct investment in Morocco was about 7%, and U.S. aid to Morocco was about 4%. In 2017, US direct investment in Morocco had risen to 21.4%.

Oman

Main articles: Oman–United States relations and Oman–United States Free Trade Agreement

On November 15, 2004, the Bush administration notified the U.S. Congress of its intent to sign a trade agreement with the Middle Eastern Sultanate of Oman. On January 19, 2006, the two countries signed the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA), which was part of the Bush administration's strategy to create a US - Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) by 2013.

On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Senate passed OFTA by a vote of 60–34, the fewest "aye" votes in the Senate of any trade bill other than CAFTA. On July 20, 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives passed OFTA by a vote of 221–205, with 7 abstentions. For procedural reasons, the Senate took a second vote on September 19, 2006, and the bill's implementing bill was passed 62–32, with 6 abstentions. In all, the Senate approved the bill 63–37, since all senators voted either "aye" or "nay" in one of the two votes.

President Bush signed the bill into law on September 26, 2006. And on December 29, 2008, signed the proclamation to implement the agreement with effective date of January 1, 2009.

Qatar

Main article: Qatar–United States relations

President Bush visited Qatar in June 2003, where he met with Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. then Visited U.S. Central Command headquarters and addressed U.S. military personnel, becoming the first U.S. president to visit the country.

Saudi Arabia

Main article: Saudi Arabia–United States relations
President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, April 2002. Saudi Arabia is a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.

President Bush had close and strong relations with senior members of the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia engaged the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm of Patton Boggs as registered foreign agents in the wake of the public relations disaster when knowledge of the identities of suspected hijackers became known. They also hired the PR and lobbying firm Qorvis for $14 million a year. Qorvis engaged in a PR frenzy that publicized the "9/11 Commission finding that there was 'no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded '—while omitting the report's conclusion that 'Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism.'"

According to at least one journalist (John R. Bradley), the ruling Saudi family was caught between depending for military defense on the United States, while also depending for domestic support on the Wahhabi religious establishment, which as a matter of religious doctrine "ultimately seeks the West's destruction", including that of its ruler's purported ally—the US. During the Iraq War, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, criticized the U.S.-led invasion as a "colonial adventure" aimed only at gaining control of Iraq's natural resources. But at the same time, Bradley writes, the Saudi government secretly allowed the US military to "essentially" manage its air campaign and launch special operations against Iraq from inside Saudi borders, using "at least three" Saudi air bases.

The two nations cooperated and shared information about al-Qaeda (Alsheikh 2006) and leaders from both countries continue to meet to discuss their mutual interests and bilateral relations.

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are strategic allies,

Syria

Main article: Syria–United States relations

Bush expanded economic sanctions on Syria. In 2003, Bush signed the Syria Accountability Act, which expanded sanctions on Syria. In May 2004, a new comprehensive set of economic sanctions were enacted under the Bush administration by Executive Order 13338. Overall, There were a total of seven of executive orders enacted by President Bush to implement sanctions on Syria, which include Executive Orders 13315, 13224, 13382, 13338, 13399, 13441, and 13460. These sanctions are imposed on certain Syrian citizens or entities due to their participation in terrorism, acts of public corruption, or their destabilizing activities in Iraq and Lebanon.

In early 2007, the Treasury Department, acting on a June 2005 executive order, froze American bank accounts of Syria's Higher Institute of Applied Science and Technology, Electronics Institute, and National Standards and Calibration Laboratory. Bush's order prohibits Americans from doing business with these institutions suspected of helping spread weapons of mass destruction and being supportive of terrorism. Under separate executive orders signed by Bush in 2004 and later 2007, the Treasury Department froze the assets of two Lebanese and two Syrians, accusing them of activities to "undermine the legitimate political process in Lebanon" in November 2007. Those designated included: Assaad Halim Hardan, a member of Lebanon's parliament and current leader of the Syrian Socialist National Party; Wi'am Wahhab, a former member of Lebanon's government (Minister of the Environment) under Prime Minister Omar Karami (2004–2005); Hafiz Makhluf, a colonel and senior official in the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate and a cousin of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; and Muhammad Nasif Khayrbik, identified as a close adviser to Assad.

Turkey

Main article: Turkey–United States relations § George W. Bush administration (2001–2009)
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (November 2024)

United Arab Emirates

Main article: United Arab Emirates–United States relations
President Bush and UAE President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan at Abu Dhabi International Airport, January 2008

According to Richard A. Clarke, then US National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism and a contributor in the 9/11 Commission Report, the UAE is the United States best counter-terrorism ally in the Gulf. According to previous US ambassador to UAE Richard G. Olson, Deputy Commander of the UAE Armed Forces Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan structured the UAE Armed forces to be closely aligned with the US military.

The United Arab Emirates Armed Forces is the only Arab country to commit military troops for humanitarian aid missions in the US-led War in Afghanistan when it deployed its forces of 170 soldiers serving in Tarin Kowt province in March 2008.

Oceania

Australia

Main articles: Australia–United States relations and Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement
President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard on September 10, 2001. Howard was in Washington during the September 11 attacks.
Photograph of Bush shaking hands with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, during the State Arrival Ceremony held for the Prime Minister on the South Lawn of the White House, May 2006
President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, May 2006

President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard maintained a strong friendship. Following the September 11 attacks, in which eleven Australian citizens were also killed, there was an enormous outpouring of sympathy from Australia for the United States. Prime Minister Howard became one of Bush's strongest international supporters, and supported the United States in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 by invoking the ANZUS treaty and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, by deploying Australian forces in both wars.

In 2004 the Bush administration "fast tracked" a free trade agreement with Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald called the deal a "reward" for Australia's contribution of troops to the Iraq invasion.

New Zealand

Main article: New Zealand–United States relations
President Bush and New Zealander Prime Minister Helen Clark, March 2007

Relations with New Zealand under the Bush administration improved and became increasingly closer especially after Prime Minister Helen Clark visited the White House on March 22, 2007. Following the 9/11 attacks, Prime Minister Clark contributed New Zealand military forces to the War in Afghanistan.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Further information: Africa–United States relations

Time stated that Africa is the "triumph of American foreign policy" and is the "Bush Administration's greatest achievement".

Humanitarian aid

President Bush worked to reduce the HIV/AIDS epidemics in Africa, stop the spread of malaria, and rebuild broken nations from their genocidal pasts. One of the most notable programs initiated by Bush is the PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) Program, which was a commitment of $15 billion over five years (2003–2008) from the United States to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. As of September 2007, the program estimated that it had supported the provision of antiretroviral treatment to approximately 1,445,500 people, mostly in Africa. Alternate Delegate to the United Nations Kelly Craft advised the US Ambassador to the UN on US engagement in Africa. Craft also gave a speech to the UN General Assembly on the investment the U.S. and other nations were making to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa and malaria in Africa, and promote development there.

Bush also initiated programs that put more than 29 million of Africa's poorest children into schools. Bush provided "huge overt support" in Liberia to stabilize the country, and increasingly effective aid and trade backing good governance have helped improve health and provide education, skills, and jobs on the continent. He also supported agricultural independence in Africa, reducing Chinese mercantilism on the continent that had been overwhelming the farmers. Beninese cotton farmers urged him to "stand fast on his opposition to the pork-belly politics of the farm bill that is winding its disgraceful way through Congress" on his last visit to Africa. Finally, he was steadfast in changing the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks so it will favor the poor in Africa.

Sudan/Darfur conflict

Main article: Sudan–United States relations Further information: War in Darfur

On October 13, 2006, President Bush signed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act imposing sanctions against people responsible for genocide and war crimes in Sudan. It enables the Bush administration to deny Sudan's government access to oil revenues. Furthermore, to the signing of the law, Bush signed another executive order that confirms the existing sanctions but eases some on parts of southern Sudan. It also includes exceptions to facilitate the flow of humanitarian aid to Darfur. On the other side the order toughens some sanctions, including a provision that bars any American from engaging in oil-related transactions in Sudan. The order comes as the Bush administration's new special envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, began a trip to Sudan, where he plans to meet with government officials and visit war-torn Darfur.

In response to the Government of Sudan's continued complicity in unabated violence occurring in Darfur, Bush imposed new economic sanctions on Sudan in May 2007. These sanctions blocked assets of Sudanese citizens implicated in the Darfur violence, and also sanctioned additional companies owned or controlled by the Government of Sudan. Sanctions continue to underscore U.S. efforts to end the suffering of the millions of Sudanese affected by the crisis in Darfur. Sudan has often accused the U.S. of threatening its territorial integrity by supporting referendums in the South and in Darfur.

Zimbabwe

Main article: United States–Zimbabwe relations

In March 2003, President Bush issued an executive order, where he imposed targeted sanctions on the Government of Zimbabwe, including financial and visa measures, sanctions against selected individuals including Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and 76 other high-ranking government officials, a ban on transfers of defence items and services, and a suspension of non-humanitarian government-to-government assistance. "Over the course of more than two years, the government of Zimbabwe has systematically undermined that nation's democratic institutions, employing violence, intimidation, and repressive means including legislation to stifle opposition to its rule", Bush said in the order. Bush also said the situation in Zimbabwe "endangers the southern African region" and threatens to undermine democratic reforms throughout the continent. Despite strained political relations, the United States continued as a leading provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe, providing about $400,000,000 in humanitarian assistance from 2002 to 2007, most of it being food aid. In January 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of the Bush administration identified Zimbabwe as one of the states in outposts of tyranny due to the Zimbabwean Government of Robert Mugabe's increased assault on human rights and the rule of law.

In July 2008, President Bush signed another executive order to widen the sanctions against individuals and organizations in Zimbabwe associated with what he calls the "illegitimate" regime of President Robert Mugabe after the controversial 2008 Zimbabwean general election.

See also

References

  1. Coll, Steve (2004). Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. Penguin Group. pp. 543–544. ISBN 9781594200076.
  2. Smith (2016), pp. 181–182, 193.
  3. Draper (2007), pp. 128–130.
  4. ^ "President Bush Speech on Missile Defense". Federation of American Scientists. May 1, 2001. Archived from the original on March 13, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  5. James Oliver, "Pragmatic Fathers and Ideological Suns: Foreign Policy in the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W Bush". White House Studies 7#3 (2007): 199–213.
  6. Roberta Haar, "Explaining George W. Bush's adoption of the neoconservative agenda after 9/11". Politics & Policy 38.5 (2010): 965–990.
  7. Moghadam, Assaf (2008). The Globalization of Martyrdom: Al Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the Diffusion of Suicide Attacks. Johns Hopkins University. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-8018-9055-0.
  8. Livesey, Bruce (January 25, 2005). "Special Reports – The Salafist Movement: Al Qaeda's New Front". PBS Frontline. WGBH educational foundation. Retrieved October 18, 2011.Geltzer, Joshua A. (2011). US Counter-Terrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda: Signalling and the Terrorist World-View (Reprint ed.). Routledge. p. 83. ISBN 978-0415664523.
  9. Wright (2006), p. 79.
  10. "S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force". www.govtrack.us. Retrieved May 18, 2020.
  11. "President Bush Salutes Heroes in New York". whitehouse.gov. September 14, 2001. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved June 23, 2009 – via National Archives.
  12. ^ "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People". whitehouse.gov. September 20, 2001. Archived from the original on May 27, 2009. Retrieved June 23, 2009 – via National Archives.
  13. Burns, William J.; Thomas-Greenfield, Linda (September 23, 2020). "The Transformation of Diplomacy: How to Save the State Department". Foreign Affairs. Vol. 99, no. 6. ISSN 0015-7120.
  14. Draper (2007), pp. 166–169
  15. Smith (2016), pp. 277–278
  16. Herring (2008), pp. 943–944
  17. Leffler (2011), pp. 34–35
  18. Leffler (2011), pp. 37–38
  19. "ABM Treaty Fact Sheet: Statement by the Press Secretary: Announcement of Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty". White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
  20. Stephen L. Quackenbush, "National missile defense and deterrence". Political Research Quarterly 59.4 (2006): 533–541. Online
  21. Byron W. Daynes, and Glen Sussman. "Comparing the Environmental Policies of Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush". White House Studies 7#3 (2007): 167+.
  22. Byron W. Daynes, and Glen Sussman, White House Politics and the Environment: Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush (Texas A&M UP, 2010) pp 189–209.
  23. Wayne Washington (December 5, 2003). "Bush lifts steel import tariffs: Industry angry; trade war averted". The Boston Globe. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  24. Paul Meller, Elizabeth Becker (September 1, 2004). "U.S. Loses Trade Cases and Faces Penalties". The New York Times. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  25. President Bush (September 17, 2002). "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction". National Security Presidential Directives. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  26. President Bush (February 11, 2004). "President Announces New Measures to Counter the Threat of WMD". Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  27. Lynch, Colum (April 1, 2009). "U.S. to Seek Seat on U.N. Human Rights Council". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 26, 2010.
  28. "U.N. Ambassador Re-Nomination Hearing". C-SPAN. July 27, 2006.
  29. Victoria K. Holt, and Michael G. Mackinnon. "The origins and evolution of US policy towards peace operations". International Peacekeeping 15.1 (2008): 18-34 online.
  30. Richard Gowan, "The United States and Peacekeeping Policy in Europe and Latin America: An Uncertain Catalyst?." International Peacekeeping 15.1 (2008): 84-101.
  31. Erika N. Cornelius, and Ryan C. Hendrickson, "George W. Bush, War Powers and UN Peacekeeping in Haiti." White House Studies 8.1 (2008): 57+.
  32. "USAID – 50 Years of Food For Peace: Bringing Hope to the Hungry". USAID. July 13, 2004. Archived from the original on December 14, 2012. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  33. Elizabeth Becker (December 22, 2004). "U.S. slashes aid to food programs / Charities estimate $100 million in cuts". The New York Times. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  34. "Poverty can be halved if efforts are coupled with better governance, says TI" (PDF). Transparency International. January 19, 2005. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  35. "Quarter Of Bush's $15 Billion For AIDS Going To Christian Groups". The Huffington Post. Associated Press. January 29, 2006. Retrieved June 30, 2006.
  36. "Bush signs aid deal with Tanzania". CNN. February 17, 2008. Retrieved February 17, 2006.
  37. "Bush vows to help war-crippled Liberia rebound". CNN. February 21, 2008. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved February 22, 2008.
  38. "U.S. to give $200M in food aid". CNN. April 15, 2008. Retrieved April 15, 2008.
  39. Hal Brands, and Peter Feaver, "The case for Bush revisionism: Reevaluating the legacy of America's 43rd president". Journal of Strategic Studies 41.1-2 (2018): 234-274 .online pp 22-24.
  40. "U.S. 'friendly fire' pilot won't face court martial". CBC News. July 6, 2004. Retrieved January 28, 2004.
  41. "Pilots blamed for 'friendly fire' deaths". BBC News. August 22, 2002. Retrieved January 28, 2007.
  42. Drache, Daniel (2008). Big Picture Realities: Canada and Mexico at the Crossroads. Wilfrid Laurier U.P. p. 115. ISBN 9781554582334. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  43. Greg Weston (May 16, 2011). "Canada offered to aid Iraq invasion: WikiLeaks". CBC News.
  44. "Prime ministers and presidents". CBC News. February 18, 2009.
  45. "Guest column: Time, Canada, to negotiate the Northwest Passage". CBC News. Retrieved July 18, 2017.
  46. "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress – 1st Session". www.senate.gov.
  47. "27 July 2005 House Roll Call Vote on Passage of H.R. 3045".
  48. Kumar, Anita (July 28, 2005). "With push from Bush, CAFTA is approved". St. Petersburg Times. Archived from the original on May 26, 2006.
  49. "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress – 1st Session". www.senate.gov.
  50. "Latinamerica Press: Article". May 10, 2008. Archived from the original on May 10, 2008.
  51. "Chile and U.S. Sign Accord on Free Trade". The New York Times. June 7, 2003. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  52. "Final Text | Office of the United States Trade Representative". Ustr.gov. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  53. "The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement: An Early Record of Success | Office of the United States Trade Representative". Ustr.gov. January 1, 2004. Archived from the original on October 15, 2010. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  54. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reports/2010/NTE/2010_NTE_Chile_final.pdf
  55. "Doing Business in Chile: 2010 Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 5, 2010. Retrieved December 6, 2010.
  56. "Mexico Still Wants "The Whole Enchilada"".
  57. "oso y el puercoespín · ELPAÍS.com". Archived from the original on August 1, 2012.
  58. "Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Mexico News | Dallas Morning News".
  59. "rejected by House of Representatives".
  60. With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill; Barrier Trumps Immigration Overhaul
  61. "CIA – The World Factbook 2000 – Net migration rate". Archived from the original on November 18, 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2008.
  62. ^ Mexico, The CIA factbook.
  63. Globalis – an interactive world map – Mexico – Annual population growth rate Archived October 12, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  64. Reid, T.R. (May 25, 2006). "Mexico's Fox Urges Fairness for Immigrants". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
  65. Lochhead, Carolyn (May 21, 2006). "Give and take across the border / 1 in 7 Mexican workers migrates – most send money home". The San Francisco Chronicle.
  66. "SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Mexico – Remittances are Mexico's biggest source of income, says Fox".
  67. Jarrett Murphy (March 21, 2003). "War Threat Divides World". CBS News.
  68. Office of the United States Trade Representative, USTR Notifies Congress of Intent to Initiate Free Trade Talks with Andean Countries Archived January 19, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. November 18, 2003. Retrieved on December 4, 2007.
  69. (in Spanish) El Comercio, Por amplia mayoría Congreso aprobó ratificación del TLC. June 28, 2006. Retrieved on November 30, 2007.
  70. The New York Times, Democrats Divided as House Passes Peru Trade Bill. November 8, 2007. Retrieved on November 30, 2007.
  71. House Clerk's Office, . Retrieved on February 13, 2008.
  72. The New York Times, Senate Approves Peru Trade Deal. December 5, 2007. Retrieved on December 5, 2007.
  73. Senate Clerk's Office, . Retrieved on February 13, 2008.
  74. "The Second Bush Administration and Southeast Asia-Richard P. Cronin Senior Associate-The Henry L. Stimson Center" (PDF). www.files.ethz.ch. July 17, 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
  75. "Plans for Bush-Asean summit hit brick wall". Archived from the original on March 6, 2017. Retrieved March 6, 2017. The Straits Times.
  76. ^ Nguyen, Thi Thuy Hang (May 31, 2017). "George W. Bush and Asia: In the Shadow of 11 September". Asian Affairs. 48 (2). www.tandfonline.com: 313–333. doi:10.1080/03068374.2017.1313618. S2CID 159960515.
  77. ^ Crean, Jeffrey (2024). The Fear of Chinese Power: an International History. New Approaches to International History series. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-350-23394-2.
  78. "Bush confronts Chinese leader over Tibet crackdown, says Taiwan missile fuse shipment mistake". www.southcoasttoday.com. March 26, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
  79. ^ Ejaz, Ahmad. "United States-India Relations: An expanding strategic partnership" (PDF). Pakistan Vision. 13 (1). Retrieved December 17, 2013.
  80. The world needs India: Bush March 3, 2006
  81. Zakaria, Fareed, The Post-American World, 2008 Cahapter VII, pp. 225–226
  82. Laskar, Rejaul (December 2013). "Promoting National Interest Through Diplomacy". Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Diplomatist. 1 (9): 60.
  83. "About Boeing in India". Boeing India. Archived from the original on February 9, 2014. Retrieved December 17, 2013.
  84. ^ Dolan, Bridget M. (December 10, 2012). "Science and Technology Agreements as Tools for Science Diplomacy". Science & Diplomacy. 1 (4).
  85. "India pledges 5 million dollars for Katrina relief". Ia.rediff.com. September 3, 2005. Retrieved December 17, 2013.
  86. "March 2006 news archive" (PDF). ipcs.org. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
  87. ^ "President Delivers State of the Union Address". whitehouse.gov. January 29, 2002. Archived from the original on May 2, 2009. Retrieved June 23, 2009 – via National Archives.
  88. Pollack, Jonathan D. (Summer 2003). "The United States, North Korea, and the End of the Agreed Framework". Naval War College Review. Archived from the original on August 18, 2006.
  89. State of the Union Address. February 2, 2005.
  90. "President Bush's Statement on North Korea Nuclear Test". whitehouse.gov. October 9, 2006. Archived from the original on August 22, 2008. Retrieved June 23, 2009 – via National Archives.
  91. Mann (2015), pp. 186–189
  92. "North Korea pledges to test nuclear bomb". CNN. October 4, 2006. Archived from the original on October 22, 2006. Retrieved October 16, 2006.
  93. NBC News and lnews services (October 16, 2006). "U.S. confirms N. Korean blast was radioactive". NBC News. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved October 16, 2006.
  94. Associated Press (October 14, 2006). "Security Council Unanimously Approves Sanctions on N. Korea". Fox News Channel. Archived from the original on October 15, 2006. Retrieved October 14, 2006.
  95. Kessler, Glenn (March 13, 2015). "Cotton's misguided history lesson on the North Korean nuclear deal". Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 12, 2016. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  96. "North Korea Ready to Shut Down Reactor 'Immediately'". Fox News Channel. Associated Press. May 7, 2007. Archived from the original on May 9, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  97. "U.S.: North Korea agrees to shut down nuke facilities". CNN. Associated Press. September 2, 2007. Archived from the original on September 17, 2007.
  98. "Background Note: Singapore". Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State. September 2009. Retrieved March 11, 2010.
  99. ^ "The President's News Conference With President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea in Seoul, South Korea". www.presidency.ucsb.edu. February 20, 2002. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
  100. ^ Hemmings, John; Bruce, Scott; Hwang, Balbina Y.; Roehrig, Terence; Snyder, Scott A. (2012). "The ROK Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan". Global Korea: 45–60. JSTOR resrep05670.4.
  101. "South Korean Troops to Iraq: A Boost for U.S.-ROK Relations". www.heritage.org. February 13, 2004. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
  102. ^ "Bush Vows Taiwan Support". Archived from the original on November 10, 2003. Retrieved June 1, 2014.
  103. Jean Edward Smith, Bush (2016) p 197.
  104. Guy Roberts, "Circling the Middle Kingdom: George W. Bush and China 1999–2003" Australasian Journal of American Studies (2011) 30#1 pp 57-71.
  105. Chen-Don Tso, "The US-Taiwan FTA during the Bush-Chen Era Revisited: Trade and Strategic Accounts Compared". Issues & Studies 48.1 (2012) pp 5184.
  106. Tom McNichol (June 12, 2001). "President Bush's first-ever trip to Europe". Salon Media Group. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  107. "Text of a Letter From The President". whitehouse.gov. March 13, 2001. Retrieved September 2, 2017 – via National Archives.
  108. "President Bush Welcomes President Aliyev of Azerbaijan to the White House". Transcript from The Oval Office. Office of the Press Secretary. April 28, 2005. Retrieved October 23, 2006.
  109. Diehl, Jackson (April 24, 2006). "Retreat From the Freedom Agenda". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2006.
  110. "Azerbaijan Protests Face Crackdown". CBS News. November 27, 2005. Retrieved October 23, 2006.
  111. "Supporters Of Slain Kazakh Oppositionist Open Probe". Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. August 29, 2006. Retrieved October 23, 2006.
  112. "Setback for Democracy in Kazakhstan". Perspicacity Press Online. January 12, 2005. Archived from the original on May 9, 2006. Retrieved October 23, 2006.
  113. ^ "Press Release: President Bush Signs Belarus Democracy Act on Heels of Rigged Elections and Referendum". CSCE. March 8, 2016. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
  114. Bush, George W. "Statement on the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 (Text Only)". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved February 14, 2019 – via National Archives.
  115. "Bush slaps sanctions on Belarus officials". AAJ.TV. June 19, 2006. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  116. "H.R. 5948 – 109th Congress (2005–2006): Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006". www.congress.gov. January 12, 2007. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
  117. ^ "Full text of letter written by eight European leaders". The Irish Times. January 30, 2003.
  118. "Parliament approves withdrawal of most Czech troops from Iraq in 2008". International Herald Tribune. The Associated Press. December 5, 2007. Archived from the original on May 18, 2008. Retrieved December 21, 2015.
  119. "Špatná zpráva". www.mise.army.cz. Archived from the original on February 25, 2020. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  120. "World news and comment from the Guardian – The Guardian". the Guardian. London. Retrieved April 19, 2015.
  121. (in French) Chronologie de l'engagement français en Afghanistan Archived December 1, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Le Point, 11 Février 2009
  122. "Jacques Chirac, French President Who Opposed U.S. Iraq War, Is Dead At 86". www.npr.org. September 26, 2019. Retrieved May 24, 2020.
  123. "Statement by Dominique de Villepin to the UNSC". Foreignpolicy.org.tr. February 14, 2003. Archived from the original on December 24, 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  124. "German troops to join war effort". The Guardian. November 6, 2001. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  125. "German leader says no to Iraq war". www.theguardian.com. August 5, 2002. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  126. Khan, Adnan R. (November 24, 2010). "The Schröder-Bush dust-up – World". Macleans.ca. Retrieved March 17, 2013.
  127. John Vinocur (March 5, 2003), Schroeder is edging closer to Blair views Archived October 5, 2017, at the Wayback Machine The New York Times.
  128. Roberts, Roxanne (May 2004). "The Italian Connection". The Washington Post.
  129. Tucker, Spencer C. (2010). The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts : The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts. ABC-CLIO. p. 609. ISBN 9781851099481.
  130. ^ "Remarks by the President of the United States, George W. Bush to the Atlantic Student Summit". November 20, 2002. Retrieved May 21, 2020.
  131. "Exclusive: Inside A Secret CIA Prison In The Polish Countryside". Worldcrunch/Sueddeutsche. February 8, 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2013.
  132. "Bush: Missile shield no threat to Russia". CNN. April 1, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2008.
  133. "Bush, Putin disagree on missile defense". CNN. April 6, 2008. Archived from the original on April 8, 2008. Retrieved April 6, 2008.
  134. "Ejército de Tierra español". Ejercito.mde.es. December 1, 2001. Archived from the original on January 3, 2010. Retrieved July 5, 2010.
  135. "Spain: No combat role in Iraq war". www.cnn.com. March 18, 2003. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  136. "elmundo.es – Zapatero anuncia la retirada inmediata de las tropas de Irak". www.elmundo.es.
  137. Shawcross (2004) ch 2
  138. "australianpolitics.com". Archived from the original on September 2, 2007. Retrieved September 27, 2007.
  139. Reynolds, Maura (October 14, 2004). "Bush 'Not Concerned' About Bin Laden in '02". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  140. ^ Shanker, Tom; Eric Schmitt (December 11, 2001). "A Nation Challenged; Military Campaign; Taliban Defeated, Pentagon Asserts, but War Goes On". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved June 23, 2009.
  141. "Fact Sheet: International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan". Center for Defense Information. February 14, 2002. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  142. "More Dutch troops for Afghanistan". BBC News. February 3, 2006. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  143. Kristof, Nicholas D., "A Merciful War", The New York Times, February 1, 2002. "Now aid is pouring in and lives are being saved on an enormous scale. UNICEF, for example, has vaccinated 734,000 children against measles over the last two months, in a country where virtually no one had been vaccinated against the disease in the previous 10 years. Because measles often led to death in Afghanistan, the vaccination campaign will save at least 35,000 children's lives each year ... Heidi J. Larson of UNICEF says that if all goes well, child and maternal mortality rates will drop in half in Afghanistan over the next five years. That would mean 112,000 fewer children and 7,500 fewer pregnant women dying each year."
  144. Gellman, Barton; Ricks, Thomas E. (April 17, 2002). "U.S. Concludes bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 6, 2015.
  145. "Taliban Appears To Be Regrouped and Well-Funded". The Christian Science Monitor. May 8, 2003. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  146. Capaccio, Tony (January 9, 2014). "Gates: Bombs Away in Memoir – How Green Lantern Drove a Decision". Bloomberg L.P. Archived from the original on January 9, 2014. Retrieved January 9, 2014.
  147. Garamone, Jim (June 28, 2006). "World Cannot Give Up on Afghanistan, Coalition Officials Say". United States Department of Defense. Archived from the original on August 2, 2006. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  148. Leithead, Alastair (July 22, 2006). "Frustrated Karzai toughens stance". BBC News. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  149. Wiseman, Paul (July 22, 2006). "Revived Taliban waging 'full-blown insurgency'". USA Today. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  150. Baker, Peter (March 11, 2007). "Additional Troop Increase Approved". The Washington Post. p. A11. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
  151. Ghosh, Bobby; Thompson, Mark (June 1, 2009). "The CIA's Silent War in Pakistan". Time. Archived from the original on September 14, 2012. Retrieved December 16, 2011.
  152. Miller, Greg; Tate, Julie (September 1, 2011). "CIA shifts focus to killing targets". Archived from the original on November 26, 2013. Retrieved December 10, 2017 – via www.WashingtonPost.com.
  153. "U.S.-Afghan Relations". United States Department of State. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
  154. Pajhwok Afghan News, US lawmakers laud Afghan progress under Karzai (December 6, 2007)
  155. ^ "United States: Guantanamo Two Years On". Human Rights Watch. January 9, 2004. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  156. "Guantanamo Bay: Overview of the ICRC's work for internees". International Committee of the Red Cross. January 30, 2004. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  157. Gonyea, Don (September 6, 2006). "Bush Concedes CIA Ran Secret Prisons Abroad". NPR. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  158. "President Bush's Speech on Terrorism". The New York Times. September 6, 2006. Retrieved May 24, 2020.
  159. ^ "Full text: State of the Union address". BBC News. January 30, 2002. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  160. "Bahrain Joins Iran in Opposing Strike". Fox News. Associated Press. August 18, 2002. Retrieved July 7, 2012.
  161. Reuters (January 12, 2006). "Bahrain Pact Signed by Bush". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  162. "Statement on H.R. 4340, 'U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act' (January 11, 2006)". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved July 22, 2014 – via National Archives.
  163. "Statement of USTR Susan C. Schwab Regarding Entry Into Force of the U.S. -Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (July 2006)". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Archived from the original on August 3, 2014. Retrieved July 22, 2014.
  164. "CNN.com – Mubarak warns of '100 bin Ladens' – Mar. 31, 2003". www.cnn.com. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
  165. O'Brien, Fiona (February 6, 2003). "African Union summit opposed to war in Iraq". The World Revolution. Archived from the original on January 7, 2004. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
  166. "BBC NEWS | Middle East | Arab states line up behind Iraq". news.bbc.co.uk. March 25, 2003. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
  167. "Mubarak warns of '100 bin Ladens'". CNN. March 31, 2003. Retrieved January 29, 2011.
  168. "Mubarak: "U.S withdrawal would hurt Iraq"". USA Today. April 9, 2006. Retrieved January 29, 2011.
  169. Hall, Mimi; Richard Wolf (February 4, 2011). "Transition could weaken U.S. anti-terror efforts". USA Today. Retrieved October 10, 2013.
  170. "How Iran Entered the 'Axis'". PBS. Archived from the original on November 20, 2017. Retrieved November 15, 2017.
  171. "Executive Order 13382—Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters" (PDF). www.treasury.gov. June 28, 2005. Retrieved May 18, 2020.
  172. Weisman, Steven; Fathi, Nazila (January 11, 2006). "Iranians Reopen Nuclear Centers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 15, 2017. Retrieved November 15, 2017.
  173. Hersh, Seymour M. (April 17, 2006). "The Iran Plans". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved November 15, 2017.
  174. "Santorum challenges Obama, Bush on Iran funding". CNN. November 13, 2011. Retrieved July 20, 2015.
  175. "Sheehan, Cindy. Mission Accomplished Day. April 30, 2006". Archived from the original on May 14, 2013. Retrieved July 4, 2006.
  176. Dennis Kucinich called the act a "steppingstone to war". "Kucinich Speaks Out Against House Bill That Lays The Ground Work For War Against Iran" Archived June 4, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  177. Gootman, Elissa (December 24, 2006). "Security Council Approves Sanctions Against Iran Over Nuclear Program". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 15, 2017. Retrieved November 15, 2017.
  178. Linzer, Dafna (February 8, 2006). "Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran". Washington Post. Retrieved July 4, 2007.
  179. "Iraq: The War Card". The Center for Public Integrity. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved November 9, 2010.
  180. "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs". CIA. October 2002. Archived from the original on September 11, 2013.
  181. "CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons". The National Security Archive. July 9, 2004. Archived from the original on June 23, 2009. Retrieved June 23, 2009.
  182. Ackerman, Spencer; Judis, John B. (June 30, 2003). "The First Casualty". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
  183. Hersh, Seymour M., "The Stovepipe", The New Yorker, October 27, 2003.
  184. George W. Bush, "President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly: Archived September 2, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly, New York, New York", official transcript, press release, The White House, September 12, 2002. Retrieved May 24, 2007.
  185. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (PDF)
  186. "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Press release). The Office of the President of the United States. Archived from the original on November 2, 2002.
  187. "Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'". CNN. November 20, 2002. Archived from the original on June 9, 2019. Retrieved May 21, 2020.
  188. "U.S. advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq". USA Today. Associated Press. March 17, 2003. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  189. "Enforcement Measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter". United Nations Charter. February 13, 2003. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  190. Williams, Shirley. "The seeds of Iraq's future terror"
  191. Bush, George W. (January 28, 2003). "President Delivers 'State of the Union'". whitehouse.gov – via National Archives.
  192. President Bush (March 17, 2003). "President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours". Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  193. "Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) History Brief" (PDF). U.S. Department of Defense. May 8, 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 17, 2015. Retrieved October 28, 2010.
  194. "President Bush Addresses the Nation". whitehouse.gov. March 19, 2003. Retrieved May 17, 2020 – via National Archives.
  195. Schifferes, Steve (March 18, 2003). "US names 'coalition of the willing'". BBC News. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  196. Monsivais, Pablo M. (October 6, 2003). "Mission Not Accomplished". Time. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved June 23, 2009.
  197. Office of Legal Counsel (May 22, 2003). "CPA legal instruments" (PDF). Coalition Provisional Authority. Washington, DC. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 26, 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  198. "President Bush Addresses Nation on the Capture of Saddam Hussein Remarks by the President on the Capture of Saddam Hussein The Cabinet Room". whitehouse.gov. December 14, 2003. Retrieved May 21, 2020 – via National Archives.
  199. "Colin Powell says Iraq in a 'civil war'". Truthout. November 28, 2006. Archived from the original on February 11, 2007. Retrieved February 17, 2007.
  200. "Bush: we went to war on faulty intelligence". The Times. UK. December 14, 2005. Archived from the original on February 11, 2007. Retrieved June 23, 2009.
  201. "President George W. Bush speaks during a video teleconference with Vice President Dick Cheney, on screen, and military commanders". whitehouse.gov. October 21, 2006. Archived from the original on February 11, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2008 – via National Archives.
  202. "Bush Reviews Iraq War Strategy as Violence Mounts (Update3)". Bloomberg L.P. October 21, 2006. Archived from the original on February 11, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
  203. "Iraq Body Count". Retrieved September 18, 2016.
  204. ^ "Sporadic violence doesn't deter Iraqi voters". CNN. January 31, 2005. Archived from the original on February 25, 2008. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
  205. "Iraq Constitution Passes in Referendum". Fox News Channel. Associated Press. October 25, 2005. Archived from the original on August 18, 2006. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
  206. "Remarks by President Bush: Justice Delivered to the Most Wanted Terrorist in Iraq". 2001-2009.state.gov. June 8, 2006. Retrieved May 21, 2020.
  207. "Admitting strategy error, Bush adds Iraq troops". NBC News. January 11, 2007.
  208. "George W. Bush Sixth Presidential State of the Union Address delivered 23 January 2007". www.americanrhetoric.com. Retrieved May 20, 2020.
  209. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay; Zeleny, Jeff (May 1, 2007). "Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 18, 2006.
  210. "Bush on anniversary: War in Iraq must go on". CNN. March 19, 2008.
  211. "Baghdad on lockdown as rockets, bombs fly". CNN. March 28, 2008. Archived from the original on August 18, 2006.
  212. "Bush: Baghdad's move against Shiite militias a 'bold decision'". CNN. March 27, 2008. Archived from the original on August 18, 2006.
  213. ^ Myers, Steven Lee; Sabrina Tavernise (August 1, 2008). "Citing Stability in Iraq, Bush Sees Troop Cuts". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 18, 2006. Retrieved August 3, 2008.
  214. Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult Archived May 30, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, BBC, December 16, 2008.
  215. "Shoes thrown at Bush on Iraq trip". BBC News. 14 December 2008. Archived from the original on 15 December 2008. Retrieved 15 December 2008.
  216. "Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'" . Retrieved on March 22, 2010
  217. Glantz, A.: "Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor Archived April 1, 2013, at the Wayback Machine", OneWorld U.S., August 25, 2006. URL last accessed December 12, 2006.
  218. Haas, Michael (2008). George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-36499-0.
  219. Rachel S. Taylor. "International Law: War in Iraq". World Press. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  220. "Iraq Body Count". iraqbodycount.org.
  221. Operation Iraqi Freedom Archived March 21, 2011, at the Wayback Machine iCasualties
  222. "Charter of the United Nations: CHAPTER VII". United Nations. Archived from the original on July 10, 2007. Retrieved July 4, 2007.
  223. "Report: Hundreds of WMD Found in Iraq". Fox News. June 22, 2006. Retrieved July 4, 2007.
  224. Zakaria, Tabassum (December 1, 2008). "Bush calls flawed Iraq intelligence biggest regret". Reuters. Retrieved December 1, 2008.
  225. ^ "Bush Notebook: Bush ducks shoes in Baghdad". The Associated Press. Archived from the original on December 16, 2008. Retrieved December 15, 2008.
  226. "Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker". BBC News. December 15, 2008. Retrieved December 15, 2008.
  227. Elliott Abrams, Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013)', pp. 105ff.
  228. Ewen MacAskill, Patrick Wintour (April 20, 2004). "Blair condemns Israel and opens rift with US". The Guardian. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  229. Ewen MacAskill, Suzanne Goldenberg (April 21, 2004). "Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US". The Guardian. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
  230. "Defense Security Cooperation Agency news release" (PDF). Dsca.mil. July 14, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 27, 2009. Retrieved November 8, 2015. Transmittal No. 06-40
  231. "Israel to get U.S. 'bunker buster' bombs – report" Archived August 8, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, Reuters, July 24, 2006
  232. "US probes Israel cluster bomb use". Archived from the original on August 29, 2006. Retrieved August 29, 2006.
  233. "Headlines for July 17, 2006". Democracy Now!. Archived from the original on August 2, 2006.
  234. "Headlines for July 19, 2006". Democracy Now!. July 19, 2006. Archived from the original on August 2, 2006.
  235. "Headlines for July 20, 2006". Democracy Now!. Archived from the original on August 2, 2006.
  236. "Rome talks yield no plan to end Lebanon fighting". Reuters. July 26, 2006. Archived from the original on July 10, 2006.
  237. ^ "President Discusses Foreign Policy During Visit to State Department". whitehouse.gov. August 14, 2006. Retrieved July 13, 2008 – via National Archives.
  238. Hilary Leila Krieger (November 9, 2010). "Abbas was ready to back Olmert deal, Bush memoir says". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on November 10, 2010. Retrieved November 9, 2010.
  239. Steele, Jonathan (September 25, 2008). "Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran". The Guardian. Retrieved June 21, 2017.
  240. Momani, Bessma (November 2007). "A Middle East Free Trade Area: Economic Interdependence and Peace Considered" (PDF). The World Economy. 30 (11): 1682–1700. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01036.x. S2CID 155053491. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 11, 2012. Retrieved June 12, 2012.
  241. Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch The Iraq Causes and Consequences War (US, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers:2006, p. 143)
  242. Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch The Iraq Causes and Consequences War (US, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers:2006, p. 144)
  243. G. Kessler and P. Slevin, "Abdullah: Foreign Oppose Attack; Jordanian King to Urge Bush to Focus on Peace in Mideast, Not Invasion of Iraq", The Washington Post, August 1, 2002
  244. The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24537-2003Jan21.html. Retrieved August 29, 2017. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  245. "U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait 'Ready to conduct an operation'". CNN. February 18, 2003. Archived from the original on March 6, 2003. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  246. "US tightens military relationship with Kuwait". Associated Press. January 15, 2004. Archived from the original on January 29, 2013. Retrieved July 7, 2012.(subscription required)
  247. ^ "Bush On U.S. – Lebanon Relations". Voice of America. April 19, 2006. Retrieved May 25, 2020. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  248. ^ "U.S.-Libyan Relations". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  249. Schwartz, Jonathan B. (2007). "Dealing with a 'Rogue State': The Libya Precedent". American Journal of International Law. 101 (3): 553–580. doi:10.1017/S0002930000029791. JSTOR 4492935. S2CID 141633095. See p. 553.
  250. U.S. Department of State. Background Note: Morocco. Accessed March 29, 2010.
  251. "US rewards Morocco for terror aid". BBC News. June 4, 2004. Retrieved July 7, 2012.
  252. ^ Rosenblum, Jennifer & Zartman, William. "The Far West of the Near East" in The Foreign Policies of Arab States, Korany & Dessouki eds. New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2008, p. 340
  253. "Morocco - U.S. Relations". Archived from the original on October 26, 2005. Retrieved October 26, 2005.
  254. Whitelaw, Kevin (January 5, 2010). "Risky Business: U.S. Must Rely on Foreign Spies". National Public Radio. Retrieved January 11, 2010.
  255. "Morocco Free Trade Agreement". United States Trade Representative. Retrieved November 19, 2018.
  256. "Final Text | United States Trade Representative". ustr.gov. Retrieved November 19, 2018.
  257. Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of House of Representatives. "U.S. Policy Challenges in North Africa". Archived December 13, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Serial No. 110-76, June 6, 2007, p. 23. Accessed March 21, 2010
  258. "FTA Preamble" (PDF).
  259. "Labor Section" (PDF).
  260. "Morocco: Foreign Investment".
  261. 109th Congress (2006) (June 26, 2006). "S. 3569 (109th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved November 28, 2016. United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  262. 109th Congress (2006) (June 26, 2006). "H.R. 5684 (109th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved November 28, 2016. United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  263. Senate roll call vote Archived September 22, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  264. Kuwait News Agency story Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  265. "To Implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement". whitehouse.gov – via National Archives.
  266. "George W. Bush – Remarks to Troops – Sayliyah, Qatar". Presidential Rhetoric. June 5, 2003. Retrieved February 13, 2012.
  267. Henderson, Simon (April 19, 2016). "The Long Divorce; How the U.S.-Saudi relationship grew cold under Barack Obama's watch". April 19, 2016. Foreign Policy. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
  268. Kurlantzick, Joshua (May 7, 2007). "Putting Lipstick on a Dictator". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 22, 2007.
  269. Lichtblau, Eric (March 1, 2011). "Arab Uprisings Put U.S. Lobbyists in Uneasy Spot". The New York Times.
  270. Bradley, John R. (2005). Saudi Arabia Exposed : Inside a Kingdom in Crisis. Palgrave. p. 213. ISBN 9781403964335. The ruling Al-Saud family has long sought ... to be the ally of the West, especially of the United States, while both influencing it and keeping its corrupting influences at bay, and simultaneously backing a Wahhabi establishment it relies on to remain in power but which also ultimately seeks the West's destruction
  271. Bradley, John. "Waiting in the shadows". No. June 3–9, 2004. AL-AHRAM. Archived from the original on September 13, 2009. Retrieved October 24, 2014.
  272. Bradley, John R. (2005). Saudi Arabia Exposed : Inside a Kingdom in Crisis. Palgrave. pp. 210–11. ISBN 9781403964335. aimed only at gaining control of Iraq's natural resources. While that argument could be made quite strongly by anyone else, it is a bit rich coming from any member of the Al-Saud family. During the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia secretly helped the United States by allowing operations from at least three air bases, permitting special forces to stage attacks from Saudi soil, and providing cheap fuel. The American air campaign against Iraq was essentially managed from inside Saudi borders, where military officers operated a command center and launched refueling tankers, F-16 fighter jets, and sophisticated intelligence-gathering flights.
  273. "Saudi-US Economic Relations 3 Riyadh". May 16, 2017. Saudi Press Agency. Retrieved May 19, 2017.
  274. "How strained are US-Saudi relations?". BBC News. April 20, 2016.
  275. "Old friends US and Saudi Arabia feel the rift growing, seek new partners". Asia Times. May 2, 2016.
  276. "Bush expands sanctions on Syria". BBC News. February 14, 2008. Archived from the original on August 22, 2008. Retrieved February 16, 2008.
  277. ^ "Executive Order 13338—Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria". www.treasury.gov. May 13, 2004. Retrieved May 14, 2020.
  278. "U.S. Treasury moves to clamp down on Syrian entities accused of spreading weapons". Registration required. January 4, 2007. Retrieved June 23, 2009. Archived May 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  279. "Syria and Terrorism". U.S. Department of State. October 30, 2003. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
  280. "Administration announces sanctions to combat Syrian influence on Lebanon". U-T San Diego. Associated Press. November 6, 2007. Archived from the original on July 9, 2014. Retrieved September 28, 2010.
  281. "9/11 Commission Report" (PDF). 9/11 Commission Report. p. 138.
  282. "Afghan 'trust' in Arab troops". BBC News. March 29, 2008. Retrieved July 5, 2010.
  283. "Great Australian foreign policy speeches: Howard on 9/11 and the US alliance". www.lowyinstitute.org. August 15, 2014. Retrieved May 21, 2020.
  284. "President Bush Signs U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement". whitehouse.gov. August 3, 2004. Retrieved April 28, 2016 – via National Archives.
  285. "US House approves free trade pact". The Sydney Morning Herald. July 15, 2004.
  286. "President Bush Welcomes NZ PM Clark to Oval Office". Scoop Independent News. March 22, 2007.
  287. ^ Geldof, Bob (May 3, 2008). "The Healer". Time. pp. 38–39.
  288. Adewale Banjo, "US development diplomacy in Africa: From Bill Clinton to George W. Bush". African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 4.4 (2010): 140-149
  289. Nicolas Van de Walle, "US policy towards Africa: The Bush legacy and the Obama administration". African Affairs 109.434 (2010): 1-21 https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adp065
  290. "Board of Trustees Members – Kelly Knight Craft". University of Kentucky. Archived from the original on July 19, 2017. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  291. "Trump nominates Kelly Knight Craft as the next ambassador to Canada". BBC. June 15, 2017. Retrieved August 9, 2017.
  292. Ellis, Ronnie (September 13, 2007). "Bush nominates Knight for UN". Glasgow Daily Times. Archived from the original on March 18, 2017. Retrieved June 18, 2017.
  293. Lindsey Piercy (August 7, 2019). "UK Alumna Kelly Craft Confirmed as US Ambassador to United Nations". UKNow.
  294. Mencarini, Matt. "How Trump's pick for UN ambassador has deep ties to Kentucky Republican politics". The Courier-Journal.
  295. ^ "President Bush signs Darfur Peace and Accountability Act". ReliefWeb. October 14, 2006. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  296. "Bush tightens sanctions on Sudan over Darfur". www.reuters.com. May 29, 2007. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  297. ^ "U.S. imposes sanctions on Mugabe". CNN. March 7, 2003. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  298. ^ "Rice Testimony" (PDF). p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2006. Retrieved March 26, 2006.
  299. "Bush expands sanctions against Zimbabwe". NBC News. July 25, 2008. Retrieved May 25, 2020.

Further reading

Main article: Bibliography of George W. Bush
  • Adler, Rachel. "Bureaucratic Politics and Mixed Policy Signals: US Foreign Policy for China during the George W. Bush Administration". in Bush Administration (2009). online
  • Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, foreign policy, and an evangelical presidential style." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.4 (2006): 606-632 online.
  • Burke, John P. "The Contemporary Presidency: Condoleezza Rice as NSC advisor: a case study of the honest broker role". Presidential Studies Quarterly 35.3 (2005): 554–575.
  • Daalder, Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay, eds. America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Brookings Institution Press, 2003).
  • Deyermond, Ruth. "Disputed Democracy: The Instrumentalisation of the Concept of Democracy in US-Russia Relations during the George W. Bush and Putin Presidencies" Comillas Journal of International Relations 3 (2015): 28–43. online
  • Eckersley, Robyn. "Ambushed: the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration's Climate Policy and the Erosion of Legitimacy". International Politics 2007 44(2–3): 306–324. ISSN 1384-5748
  • Green, Michael J. By more than providence: Grand strategy and American power in the Asia Pacific since 1783 (Columbia UP, 2017) pp 482–517. online
  • Greene, John Robert. The Presidency of George W. Bush (University Press of Kansas, 2021), scholarly survey of his presidency
  • Grondin, David; and David Charles-Philippe, eds. Hegemony or Empire?: The Redefinition of US Power under George W. Bush (2016) excerpt
  • Han, Sanghyun. "What is Behind the China Rule in 2007: Motivations for the Bush Administration's Export Control Policy Against China." The Korean Journal of International Studies 19.3 (2021): 303–338. online
  • Hancock, Jan. "Human rights narrative in the George W. Bush Administrations". Review of International Studies 37.2 (2011): 805–823.
  • Hadley, Stephen J., et al. eds. Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama ( Rowman & Littlefield Publishers/Brookings Institution Press. 2023) ISBN 978-0-8157-3977-7 excerpt
  • Hendrickson, Ryan C., and Kristina Spohr Readman, "From the Baltic to the Black Sea: Bush's NATO Enlargement". White House Studies. (2004) 4#3 pp: 319+.
  • Jentleson, Bruce W. (2003). American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century (Second ed.). Norton. ISBN 9780393979343.
  • Kagan, Robert (2003). Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. Knopf Doubleday Publishing. ISBN 9781400034185.
  • Kim, Mikyoung. "Ethos and Contingencies: A Comparative Analysis of the Clinton and Bush Administrations' North Korea Policy". Korea and World affairs 31.2 (2007): 172–203.
  • Lindsay, James M. "George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the future of US global leadership". International Affairs 87.4 (2011): 765–779.
  • Marsden, Lee. "Bush, Obama and a faith-based US foreign policy". International Affairs 88.5 (2012): 953–974. online
  • Moens, Alexander (2004). The Foreign Policy Of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy and Loyalty.
  • Murray, Donette; David Brown; and Martin A. Smith. George W. Bush's foreign policies: principles and pragmatism (Routledge. 2018); a British analysis
  • Oliver, James. "Pragmatic Fathers and Ideological Suns: Foreign Policy in the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W Bush". White House Studies 7 (2007): 203+.
  • Pham, J. Peter. "The development of the United States Africa command and its role in America's Africa policy under George W. Bush and Barack Obama". Journal of the Middle East and Africa 5.3 (2014): 245–275. online
  • Roberts, Guy. U.S. Foreign Policy and China: Bush's first term (2014). excerpt
  • Smith, Jean Edward. Bush (2016), a scholarly biography of George W. Bush. excerpt
  • Strozeski, Josh, et al. "From Benign Neglect to Strategic Interest: the Role of Africa in the Foreign Policies of Bush 41 and 43". White House Studies 2007 7(1): 35–51.
  • Thompson, Alexander. "Why Did Bush Bypass the UN in 2003? Unilateralism, Multilateralism And Presidential Leadership". White House Studies 11.4 (2011). online
  • Zelizer, Julian E., ed. (2010). The Presidency of George W. Bush: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691134857.

Middle East and terrorism

  • Al-Qahtani, Fawaz. "Continuity and change in United States’ foreign policy towards Gulf region after the events of September 11, 2001: A comparative vision between the Bush and Obama administrations." Review of Economics and Political Science 4.1 (2019): 2-19. online
  • Aslam, M. W. "Operation Iraqi Freedom: prudence and the 'great power responsibility' to deliberate". Journal of Power 3.3 (2010): 427–444.
  • Britton, Gregory (2006). "September 11, American 'Exceptionalism', and the War in Iraq". Australasian Journal of American Studies. 25: 125–141.
  • Condit, Celeste Michelle. Angry public rhetorics: Global relations and emotion in the wake of 9/11 (U of Michigan Press, 2018).
  • Dalby, Simon (2005). "Geopolitics, Grand Strategy, and the Bush Doctrine" (PDF). Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies Working Papers. 90. Singapore. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 25, 2008.
  • Desch, Michael C. "Bush and the Generals". Foreign Affairs 2007 86(3): 97–108. ISSN 0015-7120 Fulltext: Ebsco
  • Dolan, Chris J., Tom Lansford, and Patrick Hayden. In war we trust: the Bush doctrine and the pursuit of just war (Routledge, 2018).
  • Freedman, Lawrence. A choice of enemies: America confronts the Middle East (Hachette, 2009) PP. 373–511.
  • Freedman, Robert O. "George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the Arab-Israeli Conflict from 2001 to 2011". in Israel and the United States (Routledge, 2018) pp. 36–78.
  • Fusman, Alfred. "US Presidential discourse, September 11–20, 2011: the birth of the war on terror". Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 12#34 (2013): 126–151. online
  • Ghazvinian, John. America and Iran: A history, 1720 to the present (Simon and Schuster, 2020) pp. 417–470.
  • Gordon, Michael R., and Bernard E. Trainor. The endgame: The inside story of the struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama (Pantheon, 2012).
  • Hartenian, Larry. George W Bush administration propaganda for an invasion of Iraq: The absence of evidence (Routledge, 2021).
  • Kitfield James. War & Destiny: How the Bush Revolution in Foreign and Military Affairs Redefined American Power (2005) excerpt
  • Kraybill, Jeanine E., and Raul Madrid Jr. "The Rhetoric of Crisis: George W. Bush during the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars." American Communication Journal 21.1 (2019). online
  • LaFeber, Walter. "The Bush Doctrine" Diplomatic History 26#4 (2002) pp 543–558, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7709.00326 "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
  • Pressman, Jeremy (2009). "Power without Influence: The Bush Administration's Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East". International Security. 33 (4): 149–179. doi:10.1162/isec.2009.33.4.149. S2CID 57564733.
  • Rubin, Gabriel. "George W. Bush: Policy Selling and Agenda-Setting After 9/11." in Presidential Rhetoric on Terrorism under Bush, Obama and Trump: Inflating and Calibrating the Threat after 9/11 (2020) pp: 55–80. online
  • Saiya, Nilay. "Onward Christian Soldiers: American Dispensationalists, George W. Bush and the Middle East". Holy Land Studies 11.2 (2012): 175–204. online
  • Sayle, Timothy Andrews, et al., eds. The Last Card: Inside George W. Bush's Decision to Surge in Iraq (Cornell University Press, 2019), includes primary sources
  • Shipoli, Erdoan A. "Securitization of Islam in US Foreign Policy: The Bush Administration." in Islam, Securitization, and US Foreign Policy (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018) pp. 167–210.
  • Singh, Robert S. "The Trump, Bush, and Obama doctrines: A comparative analysis." in The Trump doctrine and the emerging international system (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021) pp. 319–353.
  • Tomiak, M. K. "Did 9/11 Really Bring About a Revolution in American Foreign Policy?" Security Studies 102 (2006). online
  • Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack (2003), excerpt and text search
  • Wright, Lawrence (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-375-41486-2.
  • Wright, Steven. The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror (2007).
  • Zoughbie, DE. Indecision Points: George W. Bush and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (MIT Press, 2014),

Historiography and memory

  • Ambrosius, Lloyd E. (2006). "Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means in Their Foreign Policies". Diplomatic History. 30 (3): 509–543. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.2006.00563.x.
  • Bahador, Babak, Jeremy Moses, and William Lafi Youmans. "Rhetoric and recollection: Recounting the George W. Bush administration's case for war in Iraq". Presidential Studies Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 4-26. online Archived November 16, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
  • Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 36#4 2006. pp 606+.
  • Brands, Hal, and Peter Feaver. "The case for Bush revisionism: Reevaluating the legacy of America's 43rd president." Journal of Strategic Studies 41.1-2 (2018): 234–274. online Archived February 5, 2022, at the Wayback Machine
  • Gregg II, Gary L. and Mark J. Rozell, eds. Considering the Bush Presidency Oxford University Press, 2004. 210 pp. British perspectives
  • Haar, Roberta. "Explaining George W. Bush's adoption of the neoconservative agenda after 9/11". Politics & Policy 38.5 (2010): 965–990.
  • Halberstam, David (2007). "The History Boys". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on September 19, 2008. Halberstam's final essay ("debunks the Bush administration's wild distortion of history")
  • Leffler, Melvyn P. (2013). "The Foreign Policies of the George W. Bush Administration: Memoirs, History, Legacy". Diplomatic History. 37 (2): 190–216. doi:10.1093/dh/dht013.; historiography
  • Leffler, Melvyn P. "9/11 in retrospect: George W. Bush's grand strategy, reconsidered". Foreign Affairs (2011): 33–44. online Archived November 16, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
  • Murray, Donette, David Brown, and Martin A. Smith. George W. Bush's Foreign Policies: Principles and Pragmatism (Routledge, 2017). excerpt
  • Peleg, Ilan. The legacy of George W. Bush's foreign policy: Moving beyond neoconservatism (Routledge, 2018) excerpt.
  • Yongtao, Liu. "Discourse, Meanings and IR Studies: Taking the Rhetoric of 'Axis of Evil' As a Case". CONfines de relaciones internacionales y ciencia política 6.11 (2010): 85–106. online
  • Wright, Steven (2007). The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror. Ithaca Press. ISBN 978-0-86372-321-6.

Primary sources

  • Bush, George W. (2005). Dietrich, John W. (ed.). The George W. Bush Foreign Policy Reader: Presidential Speeches. excerpt
  • Bush, George W. Decision Points (2010) excerpts
  • Cheney, Dick. In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir (2011) excerpt
  • Dietrich, John W. ed. The George W. Bush Foreign Policy Reader: Presidential Speeches with Commentary (Routledge, 2015). excerpt
  • Rice, Condoleezza. No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington (2011) excerpt
  • Rice, Condoleezza, and President George W. Bush. Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama (Brookings Institution Press, 2023).
  • Rumsfeld, Donald. Known and Unknown: A Memoir (2011)

External links

George W. Bush
Presidency

Life and
legacy
Speeches
Elections
U.S. House
Gubernatorial
Presidential
Public image
Books
Popular
culture
Family
Public policy of the United States
Domestic
Economic
By Presidency
Energy
By Presidency
Environmental
By Presidency
Foreign
By Presidency
Gun control
Immigration
By Presidency
Infrastructure
Native American
Science
Social
Space
History of the United States foreign policy
Categories: