Ewelina Waśko-Owsiejczuk

Along with the enactment of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, the US authorities has intensified its efforts for democracy promotion in Iraq, using various methods (negative and positive) and instruments (including military, economic, political). The article analyzes the political statements released by the US government in the context of the Iraqi authorities. The analysis covers the period of 1998-2017, largely referring to the rule of three White House administrations-Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, due to the fact that during this period the US government used (to varying degrees) political statements with the purpose of impacting political change in Iraq, including the political system and the formation of the government. The article addresses the following research questions: what impact have the US government's political statements had on political transition in Iraq? Can statements be an effective tool in the implementation of the democracy promotion policies abroad? The research process focuses on verifying the thesis that the political statements of the different White House administrations formulated in the context of the Iraqi authorities had not only an informative function, but also a propaganda, persuasion and pressure function, effectively influencing the political change process in this country. The results of the conducted analysis indicate that political statements can be an effective policy tool for promoting democracy, exerting a significant influence on the political process in another country. In conclusion, it was emphasized that it is not insignificant with this case study that the addressees were the authorities of a country that is described as a hegemon, which significantly affects the possibilities and scope of influence of the United States of America on the international system.

The research purpose of the paper is to analyze the key assumptions outlined in the US National Security Strategy 2022. The paper will look for answers to the following questions: What is national security strategy? Is it an important document? What and for whom does it matter? What direction will US policy take under Joe Biden’s administration? What tools and methods will be used? What are the goals and priorities set in the document? Which countries are among the closest allies and biggest adversaries? What impact had the Russian aggression against Ukraine on the shape of the US National Security Strategy 2022? The main research method will be source analysis and criticism, as well as a comparative method to contrast the current NSS with previous ones. The research thesis assumes that the priority of the current US security strategy remains the one initiated during previous White House administrations – the rivalry with China, which in tandem with Russia aims to change the modern international order, threatening the national interests of the United States of America. The conducted analysis, on the one hand, confirms the thesis, and, on the other hand, points to inconsistencies in US strategic thinking (which takes the form of a “wish list”), which can significantly affect the effectiveness of the implementation of the set goals and objectives.

At the beginning of the 21st century, we can observe the intensification of U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq, in which certain American national interests and strategic objectives were pursued. The article presents an analysis of three groups of objectives: political, economic, and geostrategic (military), which, with varying levels of intensity, the US government pursued in Iraq during this period. At the same time, the author's attention was focused not only on the declared goals, but on those actually implemented. It was important to outline the main US national interests (divided into vital, very important, important and secondary interests), which determine the goals and strategies of the country. Finally, the effects of the set U.S. strategic goals in Iraq were referred to, showing which actions have brought the expected results, and which have not been very effective.

Za jedno z najbardziej znaczących przemian w polityce światowej w XX wieku uznaje się globalne rozprzestrzenianie się demokracji. Ze względu na (jak się wydawało) silne zależności pomiędzy ustrojem demokratycznym i wolnym rynkiem promowanie demokracji zaczęło być coraz częstszym zjawiskiem, realizowanym przez coraz większą liczbę międzynarodowych aktorów. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest krytyczne spojrzenie na promowanie demokracji. Ważne jest przy tym pokazanie, jakie podmioty promują demokrację, jak również przedstawienie głównych celów im przyświecających i narzędzi wykorzystywanych, aby finalnie skupić się na krytycznej analizie zjawiska promowania demokracji, z przytoczeniem najważniejszych argumentów pojawiających się na ten temat zarówno w dyskursie naukowym, jak i politycznym. W artykule wyodrębniono kluczowe czynniki wpływające na osłabienie promowania demokracji za granicą, wskazując na: ograniczoną zdolność wpływania podmiotów międzynarodowych na proces demokratyzacji poszczególnych państw, który uzależniony jest od wielu czynników wewnętrznych; spadek wiarygodności, zaufania do promotorów demokracji (zwłaszcza do USA) oraz konflikt celów i interesów pomiędzy nadawcami i odbiorcami.

Niniejszy artykuł jest przeglądem głównych problemów definicyjnych i argumentacyjnych debaty nad demokracją. W pracy przedstawiono nie tylko złożoność pojęcia demokracji, ale również analizie poddano główne argumenty w dyskusji na temat fundamentalnych zasad, na których opierają swoją działalność współczesne państwa. Analizie poddano ponadto wskaźniki jakości demokracji, w oparciu o najnowsze raporty Freedom House: „Freedom in the world 2022” oraz Economist Group: „Democracy Index 2021”, które służą do określania poziomu demokracji w poszczególnych państwach, pokazując jednocześnie postępujące tendencje odwrotu od demokracji w różnych regionach na świecie.

U.S. interest and involvement in Central and Eastern European countries has gone through various phases, from an intensification, when the spread of democracy in countries of the former USSR became a priority of American foreign policy, through a period of decidedly weakened engagement of the United States in this region and focus on other areas, to a phase of renewed attention by American policymakers to the domestic affairs of European countries, on the one hand because of the democratic crisis and the ongoing process of democratic backsliding in many countries, and on the other hand with Russia's increasingly aggressive actions against Ukraine, culminating in the military attack launched on February 24, 2022. The author of this chapter analyzes how the US foreign policy towards this region has changed over the past two-plus decades, both in the conceptual sphere and in the actual foreign assistance activities undertaken.

Washington-Moscow relations in the last two decades are reminiscent of a sine wave, going from a period of close cooperation to isolation and containment, to fierce competition reminiscent of the times of the Cold War. The aim of this article is to analyze US security policy towards Russia in the 21st century, and to present cooperation on the Washington-Moscow line during the last three presidents of the US as well as factors affecting the deterioration of relations between the two states. At the same time, the answers to the following research questions are important: what was the position of Russia in US security policy under the last three presidents of the United States? What impact did 11 September 2001 and the Iraq war in 2003 have on Washington-Moscow relations? What was the reaction of US authorities to the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014? What effect does the strengthening of relations between Moscow and Beijing have on US-Russian relations? What factors have influenced the deterioration of relations between the US and Russia during the current US administration?

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie najważniejszych zmian w organizacji i działalności Wspólnoty Wywiadowczej USA, która miała miejsce po atakach terrorystycznych 11 września 2001 roku. Ataki na World Trade Center i Pentagon ujawniły słabości w funkcjonowaniu amerykańskiego systemu bezpieczeństwa. Amerykański wywiad został oskarżony o niekompetencję i lekceważenie sygnałów ostrzegawczych o zagrożeniach terrorystycznych. Nawet Komisja 9/11 skrytykowała słabą koordynację, rozproszenie, brak komunikacji i współpracy pomiędzy agencjami wywiadowczymi. Celem było poprawienie współpracy, przepływu informacji i zwiększenie skuteczności agencji w zwalczaniu terroryzmu.

The “Freedom Agenda” of President George W. Bush for the Middle East assumed that the liberation of Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and the start of political change would trigger the process of democratization of the entire region. Encouraged by financial and economic support, Arab countries should have been willing to implement political and educational support, which would lead to the creation of civil society and grassroots political changes initiated by society itself. A number of mistakes made by the Bush administration in Iraq has not only caused the mission of the democratization of Iraq to be a failure but also influenced the situation that today Iraq is closer to being a failed state than a democracy.

Od zakończenia zimnej wojny i upadku Związku Socjalistycznych Republik Radzieckich, Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki stały się jedynym mocarstwem ogólnoświatowym (supermocarstwem) . Początek XXI wieku obfitował w wydarzenia, które wpłynęły na osłabienie pozycji międzynarodowej USA, wymuszając zmiany w polityce zagranicznej supermocarstwa – wyznaczenie nowych celów, środków i metod ich realizacji.

The purpose of this article is to analyze US foreign policy under the new White House administration and to present the most important aspects of Trump's emerging doctrine, with the aim of answering the following questions: what are the goals and tenets of, and the measures to implement, the foreign policy outlined in the new US National Security Strategy? Which trends can be considered dominant in Trump's emerging doctrine? What challenges and threats to international security were mentioned in the document? Do traditional US allies still play an important role in the superpower's security strategy? The thesis of this paper is that political realism is the main trend in Trump's emerging doctrine and that US foreign policy has taken a unilateral course, with a large dose of populism.

The strengthening of political, military and economic cooperation between China and Russia has been a cause for concern for the United States in the second decade of the twenty-first century, who view it as a threat to national interests and to the international position of the superpower. Due to Moscow’s weakening position in the international system and deteriorating relations with the West, it was in the Kremlin’s interest to find a strong ally with similar interests and goals. The creation of a Chinese-Russian front has emboldened the Moscow authorities to pursue an even more decisive and categorical policy towards the West. American-Russian relations have significantly deterio- rated, to such an extent that there is a need to pose the question: is the world facing a new „Cold War”?

Prezydencką kampanię wyborczą w 2008 r. zdominowały dwie kwestie – polityka zagraniczna i rosnący deficyt budżetowy. Zapowiedź Baracka Obamy o całkowitym odwrocie od agresywnej polityki poprzednika okazała się skuteczną taktyką, umożliwiającą mu wygranie wyborów prezydenckich. Od tej pory supermocarstwo zamiast siły militarnej, miało wykorzystywać dialog i dyplomację. Odnowienie wizerunku USA na świecie wymagało od Obamy odejścia od polityki zagranicznej opartej na hard power, samodzielnych, prewencyjnych i jednostronnych dzianiach, na rzecz bliskiej współpracy z innymi uczestnikami stosunków międzynarodowych.

The purpose of this article is to analyze Europe’s Place in U.S. Security Policy at the beginning of the 21st century.  The chronological timeframe of the article are the years 2001–2009, i.e. the years of George W. Bush’s presidency, which encompass a number of important events in both U.S. and European security policy.  The analysis is designed to answer the following research questions: What place did Europe occupy in U.S. security policy during the reign of President George W. Bush? What was cooperation like between the U.S. and allies in Europe between the years 2001 and 2009? Was Europe an important ally of the Americans? Did Europe influence the White House’s decisions on international security? What impact did the Bush administration have on U.S.-Europe relations?

This article describes the first months of Donald Trump's presidency. It presents his most important decisions on U.S. foreign and security policy, the voices of those critical and supportive of him, and possible implications for U.S. security. Even during his election campaign, some of Trump's proposals raised concerns among the international community and many questions about past alliances. He has announced the introduction of laws for the immediate removal of illegal immigrants from the United States, and the reintroduction of torture as a tool for fighting terrorism. He has criticized the current policy of cooperation with allies, and the provision of security to other countries at the expense of the United States. The decisions made during Donald Trump's first 100 days affect the internal situation of the United States, both in the context of national security and the political system, due to the emerging constitutional crisis and the friction between the executive and the judiciary branches. His decisions also affect relations between the United States and its allies, transforming America's role in the world and the impact of the superpower on the collective system of security.

Wygrana Donalda Trumpa w wyborach prezydenckich w 2016 r. zwiastowała diametralny zwrot w polityce zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa USA. Zmianie miały ulec relacje transatlantyckie, polityka supermocarstwa wobec NATO i Unii Europejskiej. Pomimo że sojusznicy USA w Europie zakładali, że kampania wyborcza rządzi się innymi prawami niż faktycznie rządzenie państwem, więc Donald Trump po przejęciu władzy nie zrealizuje swoich najbardziej kontrowersyjnych obietnic, to wypowiedzi przywódców mocarstw europejskich były pełne obaw. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest analiza współpracy pomiędzy Stanami Zjednoczonymi i Unią Europejską po wyborach prezydenckich w 2016 r. Analizie poddano przy tym współpracę polityczną i w zakresie bezpieczeństwa, odnosząc się do decyzji i działań nie tylko nowego prezydenta USA, ale również poprzednich admini- stracji amerykańskich, w celu pokazania pewnych tendencji, elementów wspólnych i odmiennych.

Since the establishment of the United Nations, political operations have been at the core of its activity related to preserving international peace and security. At the same time, they are very versatile and can be used at any stage of a conflict: as preventive measures, when the situation between the conflicted parties is becoming worse; as mediation measures during an ongoing conflict, to end it; at the post-war stage, when it is necessary to develop peace conditions and a new state order. After the Iraq War, the UN established the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, tasked with such issues as providing support to Iraqis in preparing and conducting democratic elections, passing a constitution, promoting national dialogue. The purpose of this article is to analyse the UN’s activity after the Iraq War, present the most important initiatives of UNAMI in terms of social and political transformations, which is to help the author answer the following questions: What role did the UN play after the Iraq War? What tasks were set before the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq? Were the implemented actions and initiatives effective?

W 2003 r. Amerykanie wkroczyli do Iraku pod szyldem wojny z terroryzmem. Obok posiadania broni masowego rażenia Saddamowi Husajnowi zarzucano współpracę z Al-Kaidą. Plan administracji George’a W. Busha wydawał się prosty. Obalić reżim Husajna, zabezpieczyć irackie złoża ropy naftowej i rozpocząć proces przemian demokratycznych. Zasadzone w Iraku ziarno demokracji miało zostać rozsiane na całym Bliskim Wschodzie. Amerykanie popełnili w Iraku wiele błędów, które miały liczne reperkusje, nie tylko dla USA, ale całego systemu bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego. Misja stabilizacyjna w Iraku nie tylko nie zmniejszyła terroryzmu, ale stworzyła dogodny grunt dla rozwoju ekstremizmu, doprowadzając do destabilizacji całego regionu. Dzisiaj bardziej problematyczną kwestią od poziomu demokracji w Iraku jest coraz większa aktywność terrorystyczna „państwa” islamskiego, już nie tylko na Bliskim Wschodzie, ale również w Europie.

The terrorist attacks carried out on 11 September 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon led to the re-evaluation of priorities in US security policy. The boundary between freedom and security became more malleable. US intelligence services, responsible for security, were set to a state of high alert. To help them in counter-terrorism missions, numerous changes in legislation have been introduced to equip government agencies with additional tools and simplified procedures. The aim of this article is to present the roots, the scope of activities and the scale of exploitation of orders for disclosure of information (the national security letters — NSL) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). These orders have caused great controversy on account of the possibility to obtain access to the private data of citizens, while maintaining total secrecy. The radical increase in the number of NSLs issued after 2001 gave rise to many questions, such as: Have national security letters been used for their intended purpose? Should a total secrecy clause be applied to all NSLs? Have orders of disclosure of information been issued on the basis of concrete evidence? Has the FBI abused the power given to them? Are NSLs an effective tool in the fight against terrorism? Why, despite allegations of the violation of human rights and civil liberties, are NSLs still considered a legitimate tool for the surveillance of society?

A report published in December 2014 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence sparked enormous excitement and discussion on many levels: legal, ethical, political. It confirmed information that had appeared in the media many years earlier. The purpose of this article is to analyze the key points of view on programs connected with the war on terror: CIA secret detention and extraor- dinary rendition, and the enhanced interrogation techniques. Important in this discussion is the formal presentation of “black sites”, which were facilitated by President George W. Bush and his associates. Analysis of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence casts a shadow on the anti-terrorism activities carried out by the CIA, and raises many questions: how far have Americans gone in violating international law, on the grounds of providing safety? Why, despite the low efficiency of secret CIA programs, were they continued? Last but not least, the rhetorical question is: will “world policeman” rise to the task and pros- ecute those responsible for the torture of people?

Thanks to the “shale revolution”, the United States is on its way to achieving energy independence, which has a significant impact on not only its economy, but also its foreign policy. Energy imports from the Middle East, for many years, determined the US’ involvement in this sensitive region of the world. Today, a new range of possibilities has opened up to the Americans, because they can look at international problems from a different perspective. The US’ relations with the major oil exporters may change not only in the Middle East, but also in Russia, whose advantage, i.e., energy, is weakening. It is not only the United States that can benefit from the “shale revolution”. If the superpower enters the international market as an exporter of natural gas and, in the long term, crude oil, this can bring tangible benefits to US allies, freeing them from the gas dictates of Russia. Achieving energy independence will strengthen the position of the United States in the world and cause it to re-evaluate its geostrategic priorities. Although this does not mean turning away from international problems that require a common effort to solve, such as the Ukrainian crisis or the growing power of the “Islamic state”, Americans will gain even more freedom in making decisions about their selective involvement in military operations that do not conform to their national interest. The purpose of this article is to explicate changes in the US’ geostrategy that were introduced in the era of the “shale revolution”. Strategic documents, decisions and actions taken by the US government are examined. The chronological span of the work includes Barack Obama’s two terms as President. Although the “shale revolution” began in the United States more than a decade ago, the tangible benefits in the form of a significant increase in production, a decline in imports and the prices of natural gas and crude oil can be seen to have manifested during the reign of Obama.

Condoleezza Rice nazywana najbardziej wpływową kobietą na świecie, przeszła do historii jako jeden z architektów polityki USA po atakach terrorystycznych 11 września 2001 r. Jako członek gabinetu wojennego prezydenta George’a W. Busha brała udział w podejmowaniu decyzji o wypowiedzeniu wojny terrorystom, interwencji zbrojnej w Afganistanie i inwazji na Irak. Pomimo że pełnienie funkcji szefa Departamentu Stanu było do tej pory jej największym osiągnięciem w karierze politycznej, to rola doradcy prezydenta George’a W. Busha wywołała o wiele większe zainteresowanie i krytykę opinii publicznej.

Za rządów prezydenta George’a W. Busha, Stany Zjednoczone zaangażowały się w szereg inicjatyw na rzecz demokratyzacji i stabilizacji gospodarczej Bliskiego Wschodu. Zakładano, iż zmiana ustroju, szerzenie wolności politycznych oraz ekonomicznych zmniejszy ekstremizm i antyamerykanizm w regionie, co miało przełożyć się na zwiększenie bezpieczeństwa zarówno na Bliskim Wschodzie, jak i w USA. W niniejszym artykule autorka przeanalizowała założenia kluczowych inicjatyw uruchomionych podczas pierwszej kadencji G. W. Busha, uwzględniając wady i zalety programów, problemy przy ich realizacji. Przedstawiono również opinie krytyczne oraz reakcję krajów arabskich i państw europejskich na propozycje USA.

The American strategy to combat the 'Islamic State' rests on four pillars. The first is to conduct systematic air campaigns against the terrorists. The second involves increasing support for forces fighting the jihadists on the ground. The third is based on the strengthening of international cooperation in counter-terrorism operations. The fourth involves the provision of humanitarian aid to civilians displaced from the territories occupied by the jihadists. This article analyzes the assumptions, tactics, the most important decisions and actions of the

The following publication focuses on the political, social and legal history of the United States of America from 1945-2016. This period was filled with important events occurring within the country as well as internationally. With the end of World War II, a new era began in global politics with the building of a new post-war world order. The United States played an important role in this new system, and was involved in many new projects, including the creation of the United Nations, an organization which was to act as mediator in conflicts between states, and was to have the power to suppress all acts of aggression.
This collection of primary sources on the history of the United States opens with the document United Nations Participation Act of December 1945, which constitutes a milestone in the creation of a collective security system. Since then, the United States has come a long way, becoming the only superpower in the world after the Cold War.
The last document included in this publication is from 2016, a year filled with a multitude of events occurring in the international arena, many of which involved the United States. Nowadays, the international community faces many problems and challenges. Issues such as terrorism and the migration crisis are a direct result of the wars being fought in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria.

The result of the recent presidential election in the United States may have come as a surprise to many, yet it was consistent with national trends seen around Europe. These phenomena are a clear sign of a departure from supranational structures, with the referendum that took place in the U.K. in June 2016, concerning Brexit, being the best example. Donald Trump’s victory opens a new, very important chapter in the history of the United States. Considering the current challenges and threats to the security of the United States, whether real or perceived, the decisions made by the new president will have a significant impact on the rest of the world.

The publication American Historical Sources from 1945 to 2016, which is divided chronologically, contains eighty-eight documents. It is preceded by a set of the most fundamentally important documents for the United States, on which its whole political system was built: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America. The texts gathered in this book vary in size and significance; some are reproduced in their entirety, others in fragments, but their selection was meant to illustrate the complexity of contemporary U.S. history. The book is a collection of various types of primary sources, including bills, treaties, resolutions, statements, reports, minutes, transcripts from Congress Committee meetings, records of lawsuits, speeches by dignitaries, presidential speeches, election debate transcripts, letters, memoirs, excerpts of books, magazines and newspapers.

This publication is mainly addressed to students of International Relations, Political Science, American Studies and History. From the experience gained through lecturing on Foreign and Security Policy of the United States and International Relations at the Institute of History and Political Sciences at the University of Bialystok, I believe that an analysis of primary sources is one of the most important tasks in the process of gaining scientific knowledge in this field.
To date, one of the most important publications on the Polish market concerning this topic is a collection of primary source texts titled A Selection of Sources on the History and Culture of the United States of America. From Colonization to 1845, published in 1994 by Michał J. Rozbicki and Krzysztof Michałek. Another important publication was prepared by Łukasz Niewiński (2016), which covers the period of U.S. history from 1765 to 1945. Thus, this publication is meant to fill the gap in published materials on the Polish market on the topic of U.S. history after 1945. It is also worth noting that the task of this collection was not to put together a comprehensive review of the history and policy of the United States after 1945, which at different periods had different tasks and goals. The theory behind the selection of texts for this volume was that through appropriate selection and arrangement of primary sources, it would be possible to show the dynamic nature of the events occurring in the United States over the last century. The chosen texts should also contribute to a better understanding of the important role played by the United States on the international stage from the end of World War II to the present.