Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
USA foreign policy
what is u.s foreign policy
what is u.s foreign policy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: USA foreign policy
U.S. Military Aid - America Must be a Global Policeman The United States military aid given to Kosovo raises many questions about the foreign affairs policy of the United States of America. Now the U.S. is sending its troops to Timor, a small island off the northern coast of Australia. The U.S. has sent marines to Australia to set up a command post for the troops that the United States will be sending to help with logistics, communications, and intelligence. Many critics believe that the U.S. should not get involved in matters that have no direct impact on the United States. But do not American’s believe that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If this is true then it should be the United States duty to help those who are oppressed and suffering. The U.S. needs to be a global policeman to watch out for the humanitarian needs of ethnic groups and peoples and make sure that they are protected against oppression. The U.S. must do what is morally and ethically right, the U.S. is one of the only countries large enough to give many forms of help and intervene when interests other than that of national security or interest are at steak. Any person who values their human dignity cannot stand by while innocent people are being killed. President Clinton believes that if we have the power to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing then we must make every effort to do so. In an article in The Washington Times, it says that this “policy would lead to a va...
The physical and mental intent to destroy another being often unveils the darkest side of human nature. In the memoir, “An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography” dedicated to the Rwandan genocide, war hero Paul Rusesabagina states: “A sad truth of human nature is that it is hard to care for people when they are abstractions, hard to care when it is not you or somebody close to you. Unless the world community can stop finding ways to dither in the face of this monstrous threat to humanity those words never again will persist in being one of the most abused phrases in the English language and one of the greatest lies of our time.” The United Nations promised never again would they allow genocide to occur after the Second World War. Unfortunately, less
The U.S. has been sending troops to over-sea countries to aid the needy, and take certain measures to try to keep our country safe. We want to help the innocent lives, care for the civilians, and want them to be free. We help other countries so that maybe one day they can stand on their own! Power is everything. Power is what controls the world, and without it, you become weak. When we help other countries, that shows how powerful we are, and how strong we are to stand on our on and help! The U.S is considered to be the superpower in the world. Therefore, it should use its power to help other countries in need. Yes, we have a lot of problems with our government,
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.
In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless you are intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
There is a high degree of complexity in this question. Should Australia, as a mature nation, be taking part in moral issues around the world even though they are not happening on our doorstep? Do we ignore the deaths in Bosnia, the starving millions in Biafra and Ethiopia, the worldwide environmental issues raised by Greenpeace? What is the purpose of developing alliances, both economic and military, with other countries? At stake, in all of these issues, is our desire for a better world to live in.
In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely hijacked food and exchanged it for weapons leaving thousands to starve to death. An estimated 300,000 Somalis died between 1991 and 1992 (Clancy 234-236). US soldiers were later sent into Somalia to capture Aidid, but when the operation got bloody, displeasing the American public, Clinton withdrew troops (Battersby 151). In The Morality of War, Brian Orend outlines ethical guidelines that should be followed in all three stages of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Orend states that a nation can be moral going into war, but immoral coming out of one. Did the US act justly in all facets of the Somali conflict? The United States espoused all the guiding principles of jus ad bellum but right intent, upheld the principals of jus in bello, and clearly failed to uphold several aspects of jus post bellum during the armed humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
...hat involve the situation but also the people of the country they are dealing with, because they might cut off aid to a country because the leader of the country might be a dictator the people would have to live in poverty. (14) I think this would be the best position because everyone would benefit from the situation. (15)In the Geneva Conference the U.S should have stayed out of Indochina’s business. The Chilean Revolution they United States should have never cut off aid to Chile for the reason being that the citizens of Chile would live in poverty. In the Panama Canal the United States did the right thing because they built it and owned it for several years and then in the year 2000 it passed it to the government of Panama.(16)in conclusion the United States should keep working on being the leading country of the world and not bring anymore problems upon themselves.
Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali once said, "We were not realizing that with just a machete, you can do a genocide." To be candid, nobody anticipated the Rwandan Genocide that occurred in 1994. The genocide in Rwanda was an infamous blood-red blur in modern history where almost a million innocent people were murdered in cold blood. Members of the Tutsi tribe were systematically hacked or beaten to death by members of the Interahamwe, a militia made up of Hutu tribe members. In just 100 days, from April 6, 1994 to mid-July, 20% of Rwanda's population was killed; about 10,000 people a day. Bodies literally were strewn over city streets. Genocide obviously violates almost all articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; however, the article I find most important is Article 3 - the right to life, liberty, and personal security. In just 100 days, one million people were denied the most basic privilege granted to every human – the right to live, simply because they were born to the wrong tribe.
Greenfield, Daniel M. "Crime of Complicity in Genocide: How the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia Got It Wrong, and Why It Matters." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98.3 (2008): 921-24. HeinOnline. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.
On September 5, 1995, Hillary Clinton delivered an influential speech at The Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Clinton expresses general concern over escalating violence toward women, in other word’s gendercide. “Gendercide refers to the systematic elimination of a specific gender group, normally female. It’s most common in India, China, and other regions in Southeast Asia” (GirlsKind Foundation). Crimes, such as bride trafficking, infanticide, abandonment, and dowry related murder; often take place within private households, going unnoticed and not even acknowledged. “Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated. Even now, in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict Women and children make up a large majority of the world’s refugees” (Clinton 3). By addressing her speech in Beijing, where gendercide is prevalent, Hillary expressed her objective effectively not just the United Nations, but to audiences across the world. Clinton effectively delivered her speech by portraying her purpose for women to achieve equality and better opportunities, with ethical appeals, emotional appeals, and logical appeals.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
Many times we ask why nobody did anything to stop such horrific events from happening. Actually, many people said that this would never happen again but this is not the case. Since the Holocaust we have seen several examples of how the general public sometimes refuses to acknowledge the occurrence of events and how the government often has little political will to stop mass murders until it is too late. One example of this that occurred not too long ago is the Rwandan Genocide. In 1994, between half a million to a million Rwandan Tutsi as well as thousands of moderate Hutu, were exterminated in the clearest mass murder case since the Holocaust. The world stood back and observed as the murders took place. Samantha Power, in the book she wrote, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide1,and her article The Atlantic Monthly, “Bystanders to Genocide: Why the United States Let the Rwandan Tragedy Happen,” Power writes “The story of U.S. policy during the genocide in Rwanda is not a story of willful complicity with evil. U.S. officials did not sit around and conspire to allow genocide to happen. But whatever their convictions about ‘never again,’ many of them did sit around, and they most certainly did allow genocide to happen.”2 Samantha Power's writing shows that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide through early warnings but nevertheless because they lacked political will to do anything about it they passed up many opportunities to end the rain of terror.3
Hymowitz, Sarah, and Amelia Parker. "Lessons - The Genocide Teaching Project - Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law." American University Washington College of Law. American UniversityWashington College of Law Center for Human Rights and Humanitaian Law, 2011. Web. 9 Mar. 2011. .