In my paper "The undone change of American Foreign Policy after the Cold War" I addressed the inability of the U.S. institutions to meet the newly created challenges of the post-Cold War world. I argued that due to a lack of leadership, especially by the President, the opportunity to "reconfigure" U.S. foreign policy institutions; supported by an absent corresponding ideology; the U.S. had missed its chance to change its foreign policy in the post-Cold War world.
America as the new superpower, the economically and military strongest nation on the globe had to meet new challenges. The Kuwait threat by Saddam Hussein definitely posed a first example. The Bush administration had to act on an Iraqi dictator that had attacked one of their allies in the, to U.S. interests very important Middle East region.
Another challenge was coming from Somalia, a country not very well known to the American public, before the media initiated TV coverage about starvation and the brutality of the local civil war there in 1991. Further, the end of Communism questioned the further existence of the multicultural nation of Yugoslavia, which threatened to fall apart and involve in a civil war. Finally, the president of America's poorest nation Haiti was overthrown by locals, which had to be dealt with, since this happened in America's backyard.
What was the major strategy applied by the United States in these cases? How would the most powerful nation react, lead or response to the threats? As I pointed out before, there was no stringent course recognizable. America reacted in every case differently with no clear guidelines to use of force or national interest visible. To prove this statement, I will take a look at the lecture of each case and draw...
... middle of paper ...
...here has been a slow transformation process of the American foreign policy. It moved away from seeing the threat of the "Evil Empire" towards the approach to promote American democracy all over the world.
As seen by the terrorist attacks of September 11th and afterwards this is not an easy approach, if even possible, and it asks for a unreserved commitment, the clear definition of interests within the international system, it asks for the use of force if necessary as well as the clear distinction when not, and it asks for a transformation of institutions and policies. Since this was not done early on, the examples provide the reasons of failure as well as a demonstration of a slow learning process in U.S. foreign Policy.
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.
Throughout the years, the United States government had made drastic changes in its foreign policies. The few decades from 1880 to 1910, which saw five different presidents all with very distinct foreign policies, were no exception. As a country, the United States progressed from being a country only concerned with expanding its territory out west, to being a country on the verge of becoming involved in the First World War.
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.
The United States Involvement in Bosnia; is it positive or negative. After a lifetime of war in Bosnia, can the United States really offer positive change? To truly get a feel for the conflict in this region we must first look at the long-standing hatred between the occupying ethnic groups: Serbs, Muslims, and Croats. From 1481 to 1903 the Ottoman Empire was the ruling body over the entire Balkan region. By the early nineteen hundreds the Ottoman Empire had collapsed. In 1918, at the end of World War One, Russia annexed the Balkan region renaming it Yugoslavia. In 1919 Joseph Stalin, Communist ruler of Russia and its satellite states (i.e. Yugoslavia), appointed Tito to be the head of Yugoslavia. Tito quickly became an iron fisted and ruthless dictator. The Machiavellian characteristics exhibited by Tito have given all Serbs a reputation as being strong armed and merciless. With Tito’s death in 1991, Yugoslavia collapsed and split into 3 independent states: Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Croatia. In 1994 Slovadon Malosovitch was elected ruler of the Serbian state. Incidents of mass genocide and several other war crimes became regular occurrences under his rule. The Bosnian crisis has shown the world the worst of human nature. On behalf of the United Nations, in an effort to settle the unrest in the Balkan region, The United States became involved in 1995. The United States involvement includes: the commitment of twenty thousand troops, the troop support of legions of tanks and other vehicles, and the “full support” of the United States Government.
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.
David Reynolds has written and enlightening book named “From Munich to Pearl Harbor” discussing three main objectives dealing with World War II. The first of the three objectives is to provide a detailed and clear narrative story from the years between Munich to Pearl Harbor. The second of the three purposes or objectives of the book is to analyze and show how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the American people into a new perspective on international relations that were different from anything Americans had known. The last of the three objectives of the book is to show the developments between the years of 1938 through 1941. Many of these developments were very important later for the foreign policy of the United States not only during the Second World War but also during the Cold War complications with Russia and today with President Bush’s war on terror currently taking place in Iraq.
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.
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.
American policy was conflicted on multiple fronts. There was a high-perceived threat, but the means devised to cope with it fell short o...
During the late 19th and 20th century, the United States pursues an aggressive policy of expansionism, extending its political, military, and economic influence across the globe. The events during this ‘age of imperialism’ laid the foundation for America’s international power while simultaneously defining the use of the these powers. The policy that the United States implemented at this time is known as Big Stick Diplomacy which was to speak softly but carry a big stick. This meant that the United States would ask for something or take a stance on an issue and if another nation refused or went against the United States, then the military would be summoned to ‘resolve’ the issues. This domineering foreign policy defined the politics of American Imperialism that was especially prevalent from 1890-1913.
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.
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.
“Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy of the past 25 years should be called "Incoherent America," because from Somalia to Afghanistan to Iraq to relations with Russia and China, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have improvised responses to problems and crises as they arose and not improvised very well” (Bremmer).
Weber, Smith, Allan, Collins, Morgan and Entshami.2002. Foreign Policy in a transformed world. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.