So, let's say George HW Bush gets a second term in 1992.
A lot of interesting foreign policy decisions had to be made by the US in Clinton's first term, how might Bush Sr. a much more experienced foreign policy leader handle them? How would this effect the world?
The big issues:
A lot of interesting foreign policy decisions had to be made by the US in Clinton's first term, how might Bush Sr. a much more experienced foreign policy leader handle them? How would this effect the world?
The big issues:
- Israel-Palestine negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords and the second Camp David meeting had already been set in motion by the Bush administration, but Bill Clinton did a lot of work there. How might Bush handle them? What results might they have?
- Somalia. The UNITAF mission to secure food aid in Mogadishu started up right around the time of the election. Clinton stayed for statebuilding and got the Blackhawk Down incident instead. How would Somalia go under Bush The Elder?
- The Troubles towards the end saw a lot of involvement by the Clinton administration. How might HW handle this differently if at all?
- Rwanda. Especially with Somalia probably going differently, how might the US reaction to the Rwandan genocide change under Bush if at all?
- Yugoslavia. Though something I personally am not looking for answers on right now, others might be. 1992-1996 pretty much covers the whole Bosnian war and most of the Croatian war of independence and the US was very involved. What might Bush do differently than Clinton?
- General foreign policy. Russia, NATO expansion, China, Japan's decline. How might Bush handle other big issues of the early 90s?
- EDIT: Given the discussion so far, the main remaining hole seems to be Israel. The other big questions have largely been at least roughly laid out, although of course, more thoughts on any aspect of his foreign policy are appreciated.
- Israel-Palestine negotiations: If I remember correctly, the Bush administration was a lot harsher with Israel than most. Not withdrawing support by any means, but they kept Israel from returning air strikes against Iraq and were atypically supportive of Arab countries in the parts of the Israel-Palestine negotiations they handled.
- Somalia: Bush's last Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger (most American surname) made a big deal about how it would have been an in and out mission to deliver the food under a Bush administration.
- Yugoslavia:I know Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger was friendly with the Serbs on account of his investments in Yugoslav companies and possibly other things. I by no means think this would mean the US would suddenly start backing Slobodan Milošević but it is going to have SOME effects.
- The first example that comes to mind is kind of random. I know there is a theory that Alija Izetbegović withdrew support for the Owen–Stoltenberg peace plan at the urging of the US because his rejection came not long after a meeting with US officials, but this is very unconfirmed. If that was the case, I CAN see someone like Bush who was more into quick solutions to conflicts than protracted work, and a more Serb-friendly Secretary of State not pushing for its rejection, but again, US involvement is unconfirmed. That said, this would be great for Bosnia. Since it happens before Srebrenica, there would be less bad blood between ethnicities postwar, a 3 way federal state would please both the Croats (who wouldn't feel dominated by Bosniaks as they do IOTL in the Federation of Bosnia And Herzegovina) and Serbs (who wouldn't feel like there is a united front against them), while an undivided, federal Sarajevo could both make Bosniaks happy that their capital isn't split and facilitate better right of return for Serb civilians that fled or were run out of town, and more desire to return since they would have spent less time in their new homes (this does mean Pale has a much smaller population).
Last edited: