There are several concepts from the Contemporary International Problems text that we will be reviewing. We will examine several inaugural excerpts to see the correlation between the actual concept and reviewing the historical context. We will examine how all of these things affect today and have affected the U.S. in the past. Several concepts we will review are as follows: defense, deterrence, détente diplomacy, national interest and globalization. The excerpts for this study are from our current president, Barack Obama, and former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
All three of our presidents addressed defense and deterrence; however we shall only focus on two. “Defense is blocking an enemy’s attack” (Roskin & Berry, 2008, p. 200). “Deterrence is dissuading attack by showing its high cost” (Roskin & Berry, 2008, p. 200). In 2001 former President George W. Bush spoke about defending the U.S., and tried to deter other countries from attacking the U.S. and our allies. He stated “...we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary.” He later stated “My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats.” During the time he gave this address the U.S. had been through the attacks of 9/11, Iraq was threatening allies and the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, Bin Laden would release video or voice recordings stating how America would suffer or pay. These reasons are why we still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, to show our commitment to keeping our allies and the U.S. safe. President Obama has also picked up part of the mantel even though he states it differently, and his policies are slightly different from President Bush’s agenda. President Obama stated “…We will not apologize for our way of life; nor will we waiver in its defense. ….you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you….” In several statements surrounding this particular excerpt he does extend the hand of reconciliation and détente diplomacy. The U. S. has used détente diplomacy. “Détente diplomacy is attempts to relax tensions between hostile countries” (Roskin & Berry, 2008, p 200). During former President Clinton’s address of 1993 he extended the olive branch by stating “…with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible…” During this time in history Israel and Jordan had not signed a peace treaty. Germany was still trying to solidify East and West Germany, and we had the war on drug still going on. Another example of this is in President Obama’s address when he states “With old friends and former foes, we’ll work tirelessly to lessen nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet…” We can see this in action currently with Iran and Israel. Another example is Pakistan and India. These attempts at relaxing tensions will also assist the U.S. in advancing our national interest. “National Interest is what is good for a country as a whole in international relations; often disputed” (Roskin & Berry, 2008, p.21). It seems it is in our national interest to make sure that Iran and Israel do not go to war because it will drive up the cost of crude oil. Pakistan and India are part of the U.S. national interest because we do not want them to escalate into a nuclear war which would most likely cause war, and lessens the likelihood of the U.S, successfully continuing our war on terror or lessening the stronghold of the Taliban. Leaving Iraq and making peace in Afghanistan are also part of the U.S. national interest because the Taliban and al-Qaeda are hiding in the mountains along the board of Pakistan and in communities. President Obama addressed these in his inaugural address. President Clinton also alluded to national interest when he spoke about our presence in the Persian Gulf; this was about crude oil. In President Clinton’s address he also spoke of Somalia, which is more of a globalization issue.
“Globalization is the world turning into one big capitalist market” (Roskin & Berry, 2008, p.13). Former President Clinton spoke of this in his address in 1993. He said that the lines were blurred between what was foreign and domestic- the world economy, world environment, the Aids crisis, and it affects everyone. He also stated that we were in Somalia. We were in Somalia for human rights and because it was a globalization issue. How could the world stand by and let a nation starve, or have ethnic cleansing occur in another country? During this time China continued growing their exports even though they are a communist country they were and are practicing capitalism. China is increasingly becoming globalized because they are selling their good around the world, and are now major contributors to innovations of products.
In closing, we are able to see how the concepts we have been studying complement each other. Even though the definitions are different, it is hard to speak on just one topic and not include others. It is hard to know what Somalia and China will contribute to the world, and yet many western countries do not agree with their human right policies. Will we ever be able to separate globalization and human rights? When looking at Iran, Iraqi, and Israel the U.S. and other countries have tried to defend, deter, and use détente diplomacy in situations that seem to never quite resolve themselves. International problems have been the focus of our presidents as well as other world leaders. Have we learned anything from history, or will we continue to use the same practices looking for different results? These are questions that will only be answered as history is made and recorded.

References
Roskin, M. & Berry, N. (2008). Contemporary International Problems: International Relations (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.