American foreign policy has gone through many changes during our 200 years as an independent nation; our position as a global power has obligated us to participate in world affairs, even when public opinion has been unsupportive. After World War 2 we were only rivaled by the Soviet Union as a superpower; our policy at the time was to establish a righteous world order while simultaneously protecting that order against threats that could tear it down (i.e.: communism). After the end of the cold war the U.S was indecisive on what type of foreign policy to establish for itself, since American diplomacy before the end of the Cold War was centered on fighting the spread of communism. The answer to this question came within the academic article I read; the threat to world order now instead of coming from one large foe, (the soviet union), it now came from a smaller but equally challenging number of small countries.
The U.S’s military involvements in world affairs during the cold war, and backed by an anti-communism ideology, are largely linked to the Korean and Vietnam wars; but during President Reagan’s time in office there was also the involvement of the U.S in the wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Throughout the cold war, fighting took place almost entirely through disguise; what I mean by this is that our motives for military action were under the guise of other aims, instead of our true motives of containing communism and protecting American interest. When the “Sandinistas” took power in 1979 in Nicaragua, U.S congress prohibited the president from providing aid to the “contras” who were opposing the new anti-American government of Nicaragua.
After the U.S found out that the “Sandinistas” were providing aid to the guer...
... middle of paper ...
...risis over the state of Iraq that is still relevant to this day.
In conclusion my report on the academic article of “the case for global activism”, relates directly to the module because it explains how foreign diplomacy in the United States has evolved from World War 1 to present day America. From our “communist containment” goals such as the fight against Sandinista influence in central America; to post cold war foreign policies based on protecting American interest. Relating to “operation desert storm”, and the “war against terror” after the 9/11 attacks; I read information given on our change in foreign policy and directly related them to the era studied in this module. One thing remains sure our policies in foreign affairs will continue throughout the times and with every change we will adapt for the sake of progress, interest, and our nations security.
When focusing on Nicaragua one will need to pay close attention to the rebel group called the Sandinistas who took over Nicaragua’s previous dictator, Anastasio Somoza in 1979, in which the United States Congress decided it would be best to provide them with aid that lasted till 1981.1 Nicaragua’s geographic location made it a big concern for President Reagan based on his philosophy that surrounded the Reagan Doctrine. At that point, President Reagan ended the aid deal and adamantly advised that support be sent to those who were trying to over throw the new socialized, Sandinista leadership.2 Furthermore, the Nicaraguan’s were dealing with some of the worst warfare ever, by the mass killings that took place, which were at the mercy of death squads.3 This gruesome realization allowed President Reaga...
As stronger nations exercise their control over weaker ones, the United States try to prove their authority, power and control over weaker nations seeing them as unable to handle their own issues thereby, imposing their ideology on them. And if any of these weaker nations try to resist, then the wrath of the United States will come upon them. In overthrow the author Stephen Kinzer tells how Americans used different means to overthrow foreign government. He explains that the campaign & ideology of anti- communism made Americans believe that it was their right and historical obligation to lead forces of good against those of iniquity. They also overthrew foreign government, when economic interest coincided with their ideological ones (kinzer.215). These factors were the reasons behind America’s intervention in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile to control and protect multinational companies as well as the campaign against communism with little or no knowledge about these countries.
The wars that America fought was primarily for that reason. The formation of the European Union was a key strategy by United States to ensure that European countries are consolidated under one umbrella that controls the political and economic affairs of the region. United States’ economic mighty, political and cultural appeal and strong military has helped maintain the status as the only truly global power. U.S. used its power to promote democracy and support countries under siege both from internal and external aggressions, a strategy that they also used to promote the interests of American companies and its people. The U.S. foreign policy through the 20th century was meant to take the lead in creating effective international institutions and arrangements to handle new challenges especially those rising from Europe, Asia and Latin America. The U.S. wanted to lead not only because it alone could have helped the international community overcome its problems, but feared that it is most likely to be hurt if it does not act. Following the victory in World War II, the U.S. led the efforts to create United Nations and NATO and also facilitated formation of new regimes in some countries to promote democracy, economic recovery, development, and prosperity which benefited those countries and their people and
As the United States developed into a world economic power, it also became a military and political power. Certain things led Americans to become more involved in world affairs, such as territorial growth. There were also consequences to the nation’s new role, like conflict between citizens and people of power. United States government and leaders had to learn the “hard way”, the challenges and negativity that they would face, such as loss of money and lack of control between certain nations, and the positive effects such as expansion of territory and alliances.
The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions
America had begun to indulge in the unilateral environment afforded to it during the Cold War. As the Soviet Union began to collapse in the 1980s, the United States was on its way to becoming a solo super power. This acquisition of complete power would inevitably lead the country into new problems, including those foreign and domestic. One of the main issues that came around in the 1980s for the Unites States was the Iran-Contra Affair, which involved the Reagan Administration. With the United States readily inserting influence across the globe, the Iran-Contra Affair proved how foreign intervention can lead to scandal and disgrace in the modern world. Along with detrimental scandals, the Iran-Contra Affair showed how America’s imperialistic behavior in South America was beginning to catch up. In order to remain a dominant influence in South America, the United States had no choice but to topple governments that did not align with American ideology. Using guerillas like the Contras insinuates America’s cornerstone of doing what is necessary in order to satisfy foreign interest.
His extreme effectiveness feeds from decision-making ability that turned the country away from the negative and instable foreign policy of Carter and back to support winning the Cold War and promoting the strength of the US. In the 1970s, because Carter allowed Communism to gain military and territorial advantages, and failed to impose American hegemon and his own power as President. Reagan took office in 1981, “he was determined to rebuild that power, regain for the United States the capability to wage war successfully against the Soviets, to act with impunity against Soviet Third World clients, and to regain its status as the world’s dominant military force.” Reagan handled the Iran hostage Crisis within the hour of assuming the Presidency. Simultaneously, doing what was necessary to free Americans, and to use his power as President to go outside the constitution and congress and secure funding for the Contras to overthrown the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and restore the nation to a pro-American government. Unlike Carter Reagan wanted to make it clear he only cared about protecting American security, and that human rights could be an after
It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicate the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a summation and conclusion.
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
Background. In 1979, a political coalition called the Sandinistas led a revolution in Nicaragua and took control of the government. After United States President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he claimed the Sandinistas had set up a Communist dictatorship. He directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to begin aiding the contras, Nicaraguan rebels who were fighting to overthrow the Sandinistas. In 1983, however, Congress voted to limit the CIA support. In October 1984, Congress voted to cut off all aid to the contras.
“Just as the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and Chinese leader Mao reinforced armed revolutions against colonial or U.S.-aligned states, American power would now reassure and upkeep rebels against communist states” (“The Reagan Doctrine”, and for some of the rebels who were rendering efforts, with the aid of the U.S., to banish the Soviet supported regimes in their individual nations. The practical implementation of some of the policies of the doctrine prompted confusion in the U.S. political dominion itself. If one would examine, to turn the doctrine’s theory into practice Reagan allowed the sale of weapons to Iran, and the profit of such trade was meant to provide monetary aid to the contras – the anti-Sandinista rebels who were secretly trained by the U.S. Special Forces (“The Reagan Doctrine”, n.d.). Additionally, as the contras were both supported and tactically developed by the U.S. and were used against the Soviet supported regimes, the “Exposure of the Iran-Contra affair in late 1986 provoked a chief congressional examination. The scandal seriously weakened the influence of the president” (“The Reagan Doctrine”, n.d.).
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.