| This dissertation examines the sources of U.S. President Bill Clinton's foreign policy, with special attention to understudied political elements of intervention. The basis of this study is the Clinton Doctrine, in which Clinton opposed ethnic cleansing, and supported democratic governance worldwide. The primary research question asks to what extent and why was there a variation in Clinton's application of his own doctrine in the specific cases of Rwanda in 1994, Haiti in 1994, and East Timor in 1999. To address this question, the following five hypotheses are posited:; H1: The more vital interests are at stake, and the closer the United States is to the crisis, the more the president will push for intervention. Conversely, the more peripheral interests are at stake, and the more distant the United States is from the crisis, the less the president will push for intervention.; H2: The more a U.S. ally is likely to intervene, the less the president will intervene. Conversely, the less a U.S. ally is likely to intervene, the more the president will intervene.; H3: The more the United Nations is likely to call for intervention, the more the United States is likely to support it.; H4: The more the U.S. Congress is likely to call for intervention, the more the president will intervene. Conversely, the more the U.S. Congress is likely to oppose intervention, the less the president will intervene.; H5: The more the media opposes the president's policy, the more public opinion will engage during crisis, and the more cautious the president will be regarding intervention. Conversely, the more the media endorses the president's policy, the less public opinion will engage during crisis, and the less cautious the president will be regarding intervention.; These hypotheses pertain to the five variables examined, including support for intervention from international allies, the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, U.S. public opinion and the media, and U.S. interests under the Clinton administration. |
