Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Tragedy of American Diplomacy criticism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Tragedy of American Diplomacy criticism
In his 1959 study, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, the well-known historian William Appleton Williams wrote, that in spite of its best intentions, American foreign policy was based on a one-dimensional American belief that Americans and the American government had all the answers to their problems. I strongly agree, for the most part, with that statement. The only aspect of American foreign policy that I disagreement is the firmness in which our government stands true to their decisions and re often inflexible enough to change them. The administrators in charge of our government dating back to the 19th century have always been too inflexible to tweak their application on foreign policy in the least bit. It has made way to a century of failure in foreign relations. America began building up its outdated navy ships in the early 1880's in preparation for what would be an American attempt at expansion. They wanted to become the premiere naval world power. They were already being acknowledged as whole of the great world strengths by other powerful countries. It didn't take long, by 1900; the U.S. began flexing its muscles. The Caribbean and Pacific Islands became a national interest. A classic example of which started the poor American foreign policy was in 1891 in Chile. Secretary of State James G. Blaine became involved in a border dispute between Mexico and Guatemala, tried settling a war between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Chile held a riot against American troops. Blaine threatened Chile with war, and they were forced to apologize to America and pay an indemnity of $75,000. This established America as a world power, but also tarnished their role in foreign policy before it even got off the ground. Many more incidents like this occurred after the event with Chile, the biggest being the pursuit of the Panama Canal. America continued moving into to foreign land, and when problems arose, America began implementing an American model of government in these areas, believing that was the only way to solve the problems.
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 the book, America’s Great War: World War I and the American Experience, Robert H. Zieger discusses the events between 1914 through 1920 forever defined the United States in the Twentieth Century. When conflict broke out in Europe in 1914, the President, Woodrow Wilson, along with the American people wished to remain neutral. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century United States politics was still based on the “isolationism” ideals of the previous century. The United States did not wish to be involved in European politics or world matters. The U.S. goal was to expand trade and commerce throughout the world and protect the borders of North America.
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.
Throughout the 20th century, successive presidents pursued foreign policy in different ways but with one objective and that is to make America the most powerful nation on earth. Despite the challenges of each administration during this century, presidents found a way to put American at the frontline as the undisputed super power. President Taft pursued an aggressive foreign policy by introducing dollar diplomacy which was meant to encourage U.S. investments in the Latin America and the Caribbean. He used government officials to promote this policy in hope that it will create markets for American products in the region. President Wilson made a promise to the American people that he will focus on domestic policy agenda and rarely will his administration
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.
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.
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
The United States has had a changing view on the management of foreign policy from neutrality to a defender of democracy. It is characterized by the Monroe Doctrine during the 20th century that states no American interference in European affairs unless the democracy of the western hemisphere were to be threatened. This ideology was later abandoned with the entering of the U.S. in WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War. The immigrants of this nation were the backbone of the working class that enabled for the U.S. to prosper economically in an open trade. As an established super power the United States has had a series of world relationships that began in 1877 to the progression of today that established the fundamental values of American exceptionalism.
Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America. 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 explicitly explain 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 conclusion.
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
The United States of America has never been content with stagnation. The landmass of the Thirteen Colonies was enough to rival that of the Mother country from which they separated. The forefathers believed that it was the manifest destiny of this nation to eventually claim the expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By 1890, nearly a hundred years following the original claim of Manifest Destiny, the land that was once open, was now under American control. But no sooner was the Great American Frontier closed, than was the door to East Asian expansion opened with the great gold key of American diplomacy. In a world where imperialism was contagious, and cartographers had to work around the clock to keep up with an ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the United States seized the opportunity to establish herself as a significant world power. With great expansionist minds at her helm, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft the United States began to grow beyond her border to claim stake in this wide-open world. This new expansionism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was a different institution than its early to mid nineteenth century counterpart. Still, the drive to exercise the sovereignty of the United State and to propel itself over the world’s stage was the same then as it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. In order to understand this assertion, attention must be given to three levels of analysis. First, the similarities that exist between the drive and purpose of old and new expansion must be taken into account. Second, the differences in the global political scene must be considered. Finally, there exits differences in the means by which expansion occurred.
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.
The concept of “cheap talk” focuses on the analysis of how much information can dependably be forwarded when the communication is direct and costless. Biased experts tend to share noisy information with the decision makers. One way in which the decision makers can enhance the exchange of information is to extend communication. Additionally, he or she must try to seek advice from additional experts. Ultimately, writing contracts with the expert can further increase the credibility of the informational transmission. Theoretically, cheap talk is costless and therefore is not expected to have a major impact on the outcomes of interstate communication. As opposed to the cheap talk model, standard “costly signalling” is predicted to provoke a more fluid transmission of information between two actors in the international system. It is precisely the cost of signalling what gives validity to the information provided. As suggested by Farrell and Rabin, authors of previous literature on cheap talk are divided in opinion. Some scholars argue that cheap talk is rather useless, while others believe that it it is helpful in interstate communication and can actually improve the advantages of both sides. While examining the literature on cheap talk, it is important to highlight additional tools of international communication, such as diplomacy and mediation. The analysis of these issues provides a close insight into the credibility of arguments regarding cheap talk. Several historical cases serve as examples of costly signalling and its outcomes, one of the most recent ones being NATO's show of strength prior to the...
During the Spanish American war, as well as the Philippine American war, America was in a state of international expansion and imperialism. This period of time brought about political unrest nationwide because of the argument; to be an imperialist nation or not to be an imperialist nation? Ultimately, American took on an imperialist point of view in foreign endeavors, however the question remains was this the right idea? During this proliferation of American imperialism, America colonized the Philippines, but ultimately the anti-imperialist movement won the war on imperialism. This small part of American history has helped to set the tone of our foreign policy as we know it today.
The United State’s expansion into its western continental territories, fueled by the idea of manifest destiny, began the US experiment with empire. Under the threat of the dominant pro-haole interests, King Kalakaua involuntarily signed a new constitution that replaced the treaty of friendship that had governed US and Hawaiian interests in 1887. This Bayonet constitution reduced the power of the Hawaiian monarchy and expanded political representation to anyone who was literate and who owned more than three thousand dollars worth of land. Since an insufficient number of native Hawaiians fulfilled these standards, the constitution essentially put the Americans in control of the Hawaiian government and people. The Political Instability of Reciprocal