In the past two decades after the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy, both the liberals and neoconservative, was characterized by the aggressive promotion of democracy around the world, as well as the export of liberal values. Gradually, this kind of foreign romance fades and recedes into the background as to how America is returning to its roots and realistic reasons. All feel the beneficial effects of globalization, in particular, the rapid decline in the state power structures. However, after a series of terrorist attacks, the most audacious in the history of humanity at the beginning of the first decade of the new century, this superficial optimism was shaken. The refugee crisis has shaken the Western system of values, capitalism, and liberal democracy, and its survival as an inevitable mainstream of world politics was shaken, but not thrown away. The refugee crisis that happens because of armed conflict, chaos, and anarchy in the African and Middle Eastern countries has led to the extreme invasions of refugees to the European Union. US authorities and the Western world leaders are responsible for “Arab Spring”, because they always set a fire in the Middle East, and, therefore, the rapid increase in migrations flows will increase.
The Roots of the U.S. Foreign Policy
The promotion of democracy is still considered the only possible solution to all the world’s problems. However, Barack Obama’s presidency has become a demonstration of the limited capacity of such decisions. Engel assumes that a vague idea of a global “war on terror” has been adopted by different players on the planet that under that banner tried to implement its own plans and objectives. In this connection, it should be noted the implicit intersection of the liberal ideology of intervention with the ideology of neo-conservatism in the U.S. political rhetoric. Over the past two decades, the world has undergone many changes; the only thing that remained is the romanticized idea of liberal democratic values as the main solution. It remained unchanged rhetoric of calling America “bring freedom” to the oppressed masses, so as to solve the problem with a lot of actors on the world stage and the problems they generate. From the ideology of the world in the camp of democracies to the idea of the growth of the free market rhetoric has not changed.
Many studies reveal that tremors began to be felt in 2008 due to sudden, rapid and radical change. The economic crisis fell deeply into the massive, unprecedented and still ongoing protests around the world, the failure of the “global war on terror” and, finally, the “Arab Spring” that forced the Western world to review their foreign relations. Obama’s intention to make Asia the core of the US foreign policy was accompanied by the rejection of major wars with the mass mobilization of forces and non-interference in the affairs of Syria. Moreover, the Obama administration tried to avoid confrontation with Russia at all costs despite the provocation in domestic and international politics. Many findings reveal that the last decade of the last century and the first decade of the current century can be fairly described as a romantic period in American foreign policy.
As pointed out by the political scientist John Mueller, in the foreseeable future, the U.S. foreign policy showed “Iraqi syndrome”, like the Vietnamese. After the war that has lasted for a decade, the U.S. just did not have the spirit of a large-scale intervention elsewhere. In his book, Strategic Shortfall: The Somalia Syndrome and the March to 9/11, Robert Patman mentions a similar situation when the Clinton administration suffered from a lack of a consistent approach to solving the problems that led to the genocide in Rwanda and too late response to the Balkan crisis.
The Confusion in the Obama Administration
The apparent confusion of the Obama administration that did not know how to respond to the “Arab Spring” shows the unpreparedness of Washington analysts to the situation. They did not have a coherent policy or approach; frightening their inability to express or even to voice any diplomatic initiative. This is explained by two factors, namely the tendency to lose of any military adventures, the prolonged recession in the economy, as well as the lack of a clear administration and a clear understanding of the situation. The fact that military adventures were not in demand was rather obvious to world politics. All advisers were aware of the presidential administration that offered massive mobilization of troops. After a decade of mass deaths of U.S. nationals, the struggle for “democracy and freedom” has receded into the background. In the minds of the younger generation, whose outlook was formed before or after the events on September 11, Americans had developed a persistent isolationist attitude and mentality, not accepting any intervention.
The last and most important reason for the lack of coherent policy is the unpredictability of the current unstable situation. To his dismay, Americans have seen the failure of the military operation in Afghanistan. Then, they also wondered why they were not welcome in Iraq as liberators. It happened because their calculations were wrong. This is evidenced by the Iraqi Civil War, which began immediately after the overthrow of Saddam, and the presence of undemocratic and pro-Iranian government. Overthrowing Saddam, the United States did not create in Iraq an exemplary democracy, and the Middle East was not able to pacify the indignant and overly suspicious Saudis.
With the advent of the “Arab Spring,” the situation has become even more acute. The reasons for the rebellion in the moderate, educated Egypt or Tunisia have been quite different than in Libya, with its tribal ethnic strife. As for Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, there was the collision of a religious character in these countries. But the administration of these sudden uprisings and unrest was caught by surprise, and nobody knew how to react. Support for the protesters in Egypt and Mubarak’s removal from power even more alarmed and isolated Saudis. India and Germany have supported the Libyan intervention, Russia and China were also treated it with skepticism, and the conflict in Syria had almost brought the U.S. administration on the path of direct confrontation with Russia.
The U.S. Reaction on Refugee Crisis in Europe
Claiming to be the world’s hegemon and sole leader of the Western world, the United States is obliged to intervene in the crisis caused by the massive influx of refugees to the European Union. But, contrary to its usual practice, Washington has remained silent, because it is directly responsible for the current humanitarian catastrophe, and so should pay for it. People go and swim in the North West with the hope to be saved from starvation, someone - running away from bullets. There are also those who are pursuing purely selfish goals. It is unknown how many upturned boats to expect when the next truck with corpses may reach the west European land. A very mild response of the United States surprised European politicians who are conflicting with the Eastern Union, and Russia, in particular. But the silence of the United States is understandable. On any of their advice and wishes are likely to be followed by a requirement from the European Union to intervene directly.
The U.S. administration was silent for a long time about what is happening in Europe, and only on September 4, a special group of refugees was organized. On the one hand, it may seem quite logical because the United States stay far away from Europe. However, the Secretary of State, John Kerry, made statements almost daily, and President Barack Obama, as a rule, regularly expressed an opinion about what is happening in Russia, Ukraine, and Greece. Many international politics agree that normal life in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and earlier - in Yugoslavia was destroyed by the active intervention of NATO where the United States plays the leading role. The Islamists and transnational corporations are best suited to organize instability in the Middle East.
Among European countries, the most active lobbyist for attacking Iran was Great Britain and its Prime Minister Tony Blair. France objected to the last, but in the case of Libya and Syria, the French authorities have been consistent supporters of the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. And the violent dismemberment of Yugoslavia supports almost all Western European countries, including Germany. The United States is responsible for the destruction of these countries, and they should accept the greatest number of sufferers, which did not happen.
Meanwhile, after the war in Yugoslavia, Americans had a more responsible approach to humanitarian issues. Tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims had left their countries moving to the United States. In parallel, the World Bank is actively allocated funds to European organizations involved in the incorporation of refugees from the former Yugoslavia.
Other Countries’ Concern about the Refugee’s Problems
It is noteworthy that the United States against the backdrop of silence makes statements relating to increasingly favor countries located far away from Europe, and the Middle East. Some of them are pure PR, such as a statement of New Zealand’s readiness to accept 750 Syrians. And some will not suit refugees themselves: for example, Venezuela has declared its readiness to accept 20 thousand people, despite the fact that the economic situation in the country is far from being perfect. At the same time, Eastern European countries come out with rare unanimity, protesting against the increase in quotas for the admission of refugees, because they do not understand how to relate to them by the United States and Western Europe the problems in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. In fact, the position is quite infantile. Becoming full members of NATO, they not only got the right to protection in the case of almost incredible attacks but also have received a lot of responsibilities, including the duty to share responsibility for the humanitarian consequences of the operations of the alliance.
Many findings reveal that Poland is put in a very uncomfortable position because it cannot reject the refugees as it will harm the European integration. But it cannot take them as well due to the categorical unwillingness of Poles to turn their country into a Catholic multicultural analog to France or Belgium. It turns out that refugees can cause even a more serious blow to the European Union than almost forgotten the problem of Greek debt.
The proposal of the European Commission to establish a trust fund of more than €1.5 billion for financial support to African countries is a logical and long overdue. However, half a billion is not enough, and it is not very clear how the funds will be collected. In any case, the European Union countries are now faced with a simple choice: whether they will help Africa and the Middle East to defeat terrorism and poverty, or terrorism both with poverty will come to them with home delivery.
What Can Be the Consequences of “Arab Spring”?
The flow of migrants from Africa and the Middle East to Europe was observed in recent years, but, on January 2015, it turned into a tsunami. The residents of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and other African and Middle East countries went to the European Union for a better life. “Arab Spring”, which was welcomed and supported by European politicians, turned a succession of protracted armed conflict, chaos, and anarchy. In 2014 and in early 2015, all attention was focused on the boats of migrants who risked their lives trying to reach the coast of Africa to the Italian island of Lampedusa. While Europeans honored the memory of those killed in the crash of fragile boats and decided what to do with the survivors, the refugees have found another route by which they started to enter the European Union. Migrants get to the Greek islands, such as Kos and Lesvos through Turkey, where the authorities do not make any obstacles to migrants. After spending some time there, they went to Athens, and then to Macedonia. Next, their way leads to Serbia, whose authorities have launched a number of camps for migrants, receiving approval from the commissioners. But they were not going to stay there and went to Hungary that is a territory of the European Union.
In accordance with European Union regulations, refugees, trapped in its territory may apply for asylum to any representative of the authorities, giving them the right to stay in the country for 72 hours, get a free three meals and a bed in a migration-center. At the first stage they came to Hungary, where, however, migrants were not willing to stay because they wanted to reach wealthier European Union countries, such as Germany, Austria, France or even England. Hungary that is one of the poorest European Union countries lacked the means even to provide refugee acceptable conditions for several days. The flow of refugees was growing every day, and it threatened to make the situation completely out of control. In June 2015, the Hungarian authorities announced plans to build a four-meter wall on the border with Serbia, in order to stop the flow of migrants. In early July, this decision was adopted by the Hungarian Parliament. However, there are serious doubts that the four-meter fence with barbed wire on a length of 175 kilometers can radically change the situation because migrants can find ways to penetrate the Hungarian territory. Now, however, the problem has grown exponentially. Even in those countries that are loyal to the question of the reception of refugees, the tension grows. In Heidenau German right-wing radicals staged a real battle with the police, demanding the closure of a shelter for migrants.
Western Europeans who were led by the North Atlantic elites stir beehive. As a result, disadvantaged bees flew towards them. The refugees from Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Gabon, Tunisia, and many other countries fleeing the horrors of war, rampant gangs of terrorists, devastation have become involved in the mass migration to the European Union. In fact, this all is arranged in a relatively quiet area above the collective West led by the United States. The US administration was silent for a long time about what is happening in Europe until recently. The economic crisis fell deeply into the massive, unprecedented and still ongoing protests around the world, the failure of the “global war on terror” and, finally, the “Arab Spring” has forced the Western world to review their foreign relations. Refugees’ crisis was forced by the Obama administration that involved these countries in wars and chaos. The Islamists and transnational corporations are best suited to organize instability in the Middle East. The provided research has proved that the US authorities and the leaders of the Western world are responsible for “Arab Spring” because they always set a fire in the Middle East, and, therefore, the rapid flow of migrants will increase.