Sound international relations promote effective cooperation and is key for building beneficial relationships. The United States (U.S.) and the Republic of Djibouti have a diplomatic bilateral relationship; both take a very proactive position against terrorism and are committed to achieving security and stability in the Horn of Africa (HOA). Djibouti has allowed the U.S. military and other nations access to its port and airport facilities. In return, the U.S. provides counterterrorism assistance, humanitarian support, and security to Djibouti. Many know of the military aspect of this relationship, while the other assistance is often overlooked. This is largely due to the U.S. being more focused on the military than stability and aid. Camp Lemonnier, the U.S. base situated at Djibouti’s International Airport serving as a staging ground for U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the HOA and Arabian Peninsula, is getting attention and controversy (W hitlock, 2012). Other countries have taken advantage of the security provided by the U.S. in the region to gain economic control, political influence, and military power. Djibouti is a strategic asset and partner; therefore, the U.S. needs to focus more on humanitarian aid to positively enhance both local and international views within its borders and the HOA in order to build a stronger relationship foundation.
Djibouti was not the center of focus or considered to be of strategic value for the U.S. in 20th century. The U.S. was engaged with other countries in the HOA and concentrated more on influencing and supporting Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan. However, the U.S. had poor relations with these countries due to unstable government leaderships in late 1980s. At the end of the Cold Wa...
... middle of paper ...
...e-of-secret-operations/2012/10/25/a26a9392-197a-11e2- bd10-5ff056538b7c_print.html Richards, C. (2014). Could China and Japan Work Together in East Africa?. The Diplomat.
Retrieved May 24, 2014, from http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/could-china-and-japan- work-together-in-east-africa/ Hallinan, C. (2012). U.S Foreign Policy and Africa: The Next Four Years. International Policy
Digest. Retrieved May 23, 2014, from http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/11/22/us-foreign-policy-and-africa-thenext-four-years/ Shinn, D. (2011). U.S. Policy towards the Horn of Africa International Policy Digest. Retrieved
May 23, 2014, from http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2011/10/13/u-s-policytowards-the-horn-of-africa/
World Factbook. (n.d.). Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved May 23, 2014, from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/dj.html
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.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein decided to declare massive aggression on the countries bordering Iraq. The most affected country was Kuwait. Due to the nature of their ties with the United States, Iraq had a well organized and equipped army that was capable of causing massive instability in Kuwait. The United States could not let this happen because of the importance of Kuwait to the US. Kuwait and the US were heavily involved in the oil business with Kuwait being one of the biggest oil suppliers in the world to the US. The aggression by Saddam Hussein to Kuwait was also a major threat to other Arab nations in the region that had formed trade ties with the US. The involvement of the US in this aggression became the first major predicament that President Bush faced regarding foreign policies and relations. The US could not allow Saddam to take over the Arab nations as that would pose a major threat to the supply of oil to the US. In addition, Iraq would have control over 20% of the world’s major oil supplies in the world. As a result President Bush responded to the Iraq despot’s power play with Kuwait to mobilize a global coalition with Arab nations in “Operation Desert Storm” that repelled Saddam Hussein’s aggression in 1991 (Crab and Mulcahy 255).
Reagan’s foreign policy intention was to eliminate the efforts of the Soviet Union to prolong its domination and from this time, he opted for the formulation of his doctrine to aid the rebels who in various countries of the world who were attempting to overthrown the Soviet regimes (Carpenter, 1986). Relative to this point, it must be mentioned that in distinction to the earlier Cold War doctrine of “inclosing”, Reagan’s Doctrine projected “American moral and material backing for rebellious actions trying to oust Soviet-backed regimes in various Third World nations” (Carpenter, 1986). Additionally, it must be stated that the Reagan Doctrine came into being as the outcome of the thwarting of the U.S. administration over the Soviet progresses in Africa, Central America, and Central Asia. “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”,
When the Age of Imperialism began in 1875, it effected Africa in many ways. Nowhere was the competition for colonies more intense than in Africa. Europeans went after North and South Africa splitting up the continent. Egypt and Sudan were taken over by Britain to obtain the Suez Canal. Imperialism helped to develop Africa’s economy and turned it into a continent of colonies.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how the growing Chinese presence in Kenya affects the United States’ international interests. In order to do this, we must look at how China was able to create such a presence, what the U.S. did or failed to do to alleviate this, Kenya’s view on both the U.S. and China, and if the U.S. would benefit from expanding or decreasing economic investments in the country.
In this section, I will provide a brief history of U.S. military involvement on the African continent, starting with the Barbary Wars and working up through the current date. This historical documentation will highlight the change in the role the United States has played in Africa [post 9-11???]. Prior to 9-11, the United States’ interactions were mainly [capture summary here]. Since [?], however, the continent has faced a marked increase in violent extremism and terrorism leading the United States to partner with many African nations in counterterrorism initiatives. These, and other initiatives, mean an increasing number U.S. service members are deploying to Africa to take part in training, humanitarian issues and military operations. These military activities are run by United States African Command, a recently created combatant command.
At that time in the early 1990’s, the U.S. was the only superpower country left in the world. The Soviet Union collapsed after the Cold War and the left the U.S. at the top. With the U.S. being the only superpower left, it meant that they were the only ones who could try to keep peace between other countries and hopefully end violence in the world. At the time, Somalia was a complete disaster and still is to this day. They have no structural government and warlords rule parts of the country.
Although the United Sates and Saudi Arabia present the United States and Saudi Arabia’s relationship as excellent, there are actually two nations who have bitter disagreements but who allies through oil. The only thing that has held this alliance together is the US dependence on Saudi oil. The United States has felt and still fells that it is a necessity to have bases present in the Middle East to protect oil, and silently to protect Israel. The relationship began in 1933 when Standard Oil of California signed an agreement with the Saudi government. In 1943 FDR affirmed that the defense of Saudi Arabia was a vital interest to the United States and moved troops into the region. Future presidents would emulate this declaration and mobilization of troops to Saudi Arabia. Again in 1945 Abd al Aziz, the Saudi king, and FDR would cement this alliance, on a US warship in the Suez Canal. Soon after, airfields were constructed at Dhahran and other spots over Saudi Arabia; beginning a long tradition of US military facilities in Saudi Arabia. Abd al Aziz was the first of his line of successors to meet with US presidents. The relationship was only strengthened with the onset on the Cold war, as the US used the bases in Saudi Arabia as potential air force launch sites to the USSR and constructed more military facilities. In 1941 Harry S. Truman made another assertion of Americas protection and alliance with Saudi Arabia to Abd Al Aziz. Truman stated that “support for Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity and political independence was a primary objective of the United States.” (Countrystudies.com) Another stipulation of this pact was that the US established a permanent military training mission in the Saudi Arabia. That mission lasted until 1992. Soon after the pact between Truman and Aziz was agreed upon the US-Saudi relationship would endure its first major disagreement. On May 14th, 1948 Israel was declared an independent state in the former Arab dominated Palestine. Israel’s independence was backed the United States. Saudi Arabia refused to acknowledge the country of Israel and to engage in any relations with them. The Saudis concerns of the Israel-US relationship were reinforced in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the US sold arms to Israel, but refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. In some cases congressional leaders refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia on the grounds that Saudi Arabia might use them against Israel.
Prior to the 19th century, the Europeans traded mainly for African slaves. It turns out they were not immune towards certain diseases and therefore had an increasing risk of becoming sick. For years to come this continued, but not much land was conquered. Eventually, conference between only the Europeans was held to divide up the land appropriately, and the scramble for Africa began. The driving forces behind European imperialism in Africa were expanding empires, helping natives, and natural resources.
Farber, H. (2014). Peace with Algiers and the Establishment of America’s Commercial Reputation Overseas. Journal of the Early Republic, Summer. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from yosemite.wbu.edu
African leaders knew that isolating Africa from international politics would harm security and economic stability, but opening their states to aid from the US and the USSR allowed for foreign ideological influence. The West planned to stop the spread of foreign communism with “containment” policies, using the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as military force, while the USSR responded with the Warsaw Treaty Organization in 1955. These military organizations were examples of the actions the West and East took to make themselves appear intimidating to other states, but neither resulted in major military action. Instead, they acted as support and communication systems for the West and East as they tried...
Over the course of human history, many believe that the “Congo Free State”, which lasted from the 1880s to the early 1900s, was one of the worst colonial states in the age of Imperialism and was one of the worst humanitarian disasters over time. Brutal methods of collecting rubber, which led to the deaths of countless Africans along with Europeans, as well as a lack of concern from the Belgian government aside from the King, combined to create the most potent example of the evils of colonialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. The Congo colonial experience, first as the Congo Free State then later as Belgian Congo, was harmful to that region of Africa both then and now because of the lack of Belgian and International attention on the colony except for short times, the widespread economic exploitation of the rubber resources of the region, and the brutal mistreatment and near-genocide of the Congolese by those in charge of rubber collecting.
" Journal of International Affairs 52.2 (1999): 691. Academic Search Elite -. Web. The Web. The Web.
The United States Military Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (HOA) is a geographical region that encompasses the countries of Djibouti, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Kenya, and neighboring Yemen. Each country in the region houses many culturally unique distinctions to include groups, which comprise the HOA area of operation. Specifically one of these culturally unique groups originates out of Yemen. The country of Yemen, according to a 2004 census, has reached almost 20 million people (UNDP, 2010). Over 45% of the population lives on less than $2.00 U.S. a day (UNDP, 2010). The poverty-stricken people in Yemen have shaped a cultural group that in essence contains the majority of the Country’s population. The purpose of this thesis is to illustrate the current Yemen culture shaped by the effects of poverty on the people of Yemen. These effects span a wide array of problematic issues predicated on three major topics. The effects of poverty on the people of Yemen include severe health problems spanning a majority of the region, the decay of the Country’s political infrastructure, and the growing support of terrorist organizations in the region. The dilemmas in Yemen did not solely originate internally. Yemen is host to some 91,587 (as of 2007) refugees from Somalia (CIA, 2011). The wake of events perpetuated by the effects of poverty on the people of Yemen, left unchecked, will continue to erode with significant and lasting negative effects on the entire HOA Area of Responsibility (AOR) to include local, regional, and U.S. interests.
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order