During the 1890’s the United States saw a surge in its interests abroad. Before this decade, the U.S. government never asserted their influence over foreign nations as strongly and rapidly. It was a turning point in the history of U.S. foreign policy and two scholars, Fareed Zakaria and Peter Trubowitz, provide very different explanations as to why the United States adapted a new foreign policy and acquired territory abroad in the 1890’s. These dissimilar theories use unique units of analysis to examine this period in American history that provide interesting explanations as to why this decade saw such a heightened level of U.S. influence throughout the world. Zakaria’s hypothesis, state-centered realism, better explains why the United States obtained foreign territory in the 1890’s than Trubowitz’s explanation because central decision makers hold the power to act on foreign policy where diverse regional interests throughout the United States merely help shape what the national interest in foreign policy is without holding the power to put it in action. Fareed Zakaria argues in his book From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role that “statesmen will expand the nation’s political interests abroad when they perceive a relative increase in state power, not national power” (Zakaria, 35). Zakaria believes that central decision-makers are responsible for seeing these shifts in relative power of the United States and choose to increase the power of the nation as resources permit. His theory is based on the President and his administration as this central decision-maker and how their views on America’s strength as a state shape foreign policy. Zakaria thinks that the United States acquired these territories becau... ... middle of paper ... ...e importance of central decision-makers and their role in using state power to assert influence abroad when the state is perceived to have the capabilities to do so. Peter Trubowitz also provides a compelling explanation through his evaluation of domestic regional differences shaping foreign policy, but it cannot completely explain why the United States seized foreign territory after years of isolationism. Ultimately, Zakaria provides the more convincing explanation for this sudden surge in American foreign policy during this decade through his analysis of state-centered realism. Works Cited Trubowitz, Peter. Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Zakaria, Fareed. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
At the turn of the century, and after gaining our independence, the United States land mass more than doubled through the use of purchasing, annexing, and war. However, the foreign policy of our government took a predominately isolationist stand. This was a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. General Washington shaped these values by upholding and encouraging the use of these principles by warning to avoid alliances in his farewell speech. The reasoning behind these actions was that the Republic was a new nation. We did not have the resources or the means to worry about other countries and foreign affairs; our immediate efforts were internal. Our goals that were of primary importance were setting up a democratic government and jump-starting a nation. The United States foreign policy up to and directly preceding the Civil War was mainly Isolationist. After the war, the government helped bring together a nation torn apart by war, helped improved our industrialization, and helped further populate our continent. We were isolationist in foreign affairs, while expanding domestically into the west and into the north through the purchase of Alaska. However, around 1890 the expansionism that had taken place was a far cry from what was about to happen. Expansionism is the nations practice or policy ...
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
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.
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.
Rise to Globalism is a fascinating summary of America's foreign policy from World War II to the Gulf War. Stephen E. Ambrose, earned his history Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and he is a very talented author. Rise to Globalism was published by Penguin Books Inc. in 1993 in New York. The book gives the readers an idea of why America and the rest of the world were communicating, ordered in consecutive order and by U.S. presidents. In this novel, Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley covered an extensive topic in a fairly short book. Ambrose and Brinkley discuss some topics more thoroughly than others. For example, the authors go into great depth about the wars in Vietnam and Korea, but slightly touches on some topics, like the attack on Pearl Harbor and how that effected the war in the Pacific. The goal of the book was to summarize American foreign policy and its growth throughout the 20th century. Luckily, they achieve this accomplishment in a book that reads more like a novel than a textbook.
Nash, Gary and Julie Jeffrey. "Foreign Policy in a Global Age." The American People Volume Two: Since 1865. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011. 743-744. Print.
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.
The major rise of American foreign influence, and thus the need for cohesive foreign policy, materialized just prior to WWII, and prompted the powerful Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, to advocate interdepartmental coordination between the State, War, and Navy entities. The subsequent global (and total) victories by the Allies in WWII heavily influenced the main crafters of foreign policy by demonstrating that military power and international obligations held muc...
Immediately following the war with Spain, the United States had both the political will to pursue imperial policies and the geopolitical circumstances conducive to doing so. But the way in which these policies would manifest was an open question; was the impulse to actively remake the world in America’s Anglo-Saxon image justified? Hence, there were several models of American imperialism at the turn of the twentieth century. In the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, the United States asserted unwavering political control. In Cuba, and later throughout most of the Caribbean basin, the economic and political domination of customarily sovereign governments became the policy. Ultimately, the United States was able to expand its territory
“Until early in [the twentieth] century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then, two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe” . President Woodrow Wilson was the leader who would initiate the ideologies of American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Up until his Presidency, American foreign policy was simply to fulfill the course of manifest destiny, and to remain free of entanglements overseas. Although he could not convince his fellow politicians on Capitol Hill of the probable success of his ideas, he did persuade the fellow writers of the Treaty of Versailles to use his Fourteen Points. America’s role as a political global superpower was established during his Presidency, as well as the modern policy that peace depends on the spread of democracy, and that national interest consists of adhering to a global system of law.
After the civil war, United States took a turn that led them to solidify as the world power. From the late 1800s, as the US began to collect power through Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines, debate arose among historians about American imperialism and its behavior. Historians such as William A. Williams, Arthur Schlesinger, and Stephen Kinzer provides their own vision and how America ought to be through ideas centered around economics, power, and racial superiority.
Hawley, C. (2003). U.S. foreign policy. Encyclopedia of American history: Expansion and reform, 1813-1855, 4, Retrieved August 14, 2008, from Facts on File: American History Online database.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
One of the most vigorous debates focuses on the current status of the United States hegemony and whether or not it is in decline. This begs the question, if the United States is indeed declining in status, will it still be an influential player or not? I argue that the United States is losing its prominent position as the hegemonic leader of the world, but will still remain an influential player in global politics in the following decades to come. Its decline is an imminent result of their domestic issues, the violation of international laws and economic deficit, which have posed a grave and serious challenge for the United States. On the other hand, I propose that the United States will remain a dominant force due to its innovation, cultural influences around the world, and military prowess. In their articles, “How Americans Can Survive the rise of the Rest”, by Fareed Zakaria and “America and Europe in the Asian Century”, by Kishore Mahbubani, provides two distinctive and thought provoking arguments from a declinist perspective. However, both articles are susceptible to criticism and will be further examined in order to understand the United States prominent role.