Foreign policies are renown for altering nations’ histories. The United States alone has justified their interventions under various pretense, that originate from cardinal ideologies. Unraveling the positions of those involved in policy making is the first step to establishing justified intervention. It proves intervention must be thoroughly accessed to be effective. The truth is foreign interventions have effects that are difficult to fully comprehend, due to the underlying ideologies, but comprehending and discerning the issues is important because foreign aid can justifiable.
Many underlining ideologies are present in foreign policies and should not justify such massive overseas intervention. First, there are parallels between U.S. policies of preserving Western civilization in the face of declining Western power and the 19th century paradigm. In the Power of Ideas lecture, we learned how there is a unilaterality to historical development. Western powers are constantly putting themselves on top of
…show more content…
Before Authoritarian regimes, the opinion was “economic growth produces an educated and entrepreneurial middle class that… begins to demand control of its own fate” (Mesquita and Downs 77) They explain economic growth be used to grow regimes instead. The issue these author present is regimes like China and Russia are being enabled to continue their authoritarian behavior. By suppressing what is defined as coordination goods like political rights, human rights, press freedom, and collegiate level education, Authoritarian leaders are crafting the perfect regime to their standards. (82) Mesquita and Downs go as far as to recommend attaching conditions to the foreign aid to limit coordination goods. Foreign policy has the negative effect of not understanding the domestic factors, but through constant evaluation aid can be
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.
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.
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
A youthful, liberating drive destroyed European rule, fostered alone befalling and mobility, and aggressive attempts to actualize nation-states. A bearing of all-around bread-and-butter advance brought new abundance to abounding locations of the continent. Only during the 1970s did the costs of amplification become bright as numbers outran application and resources, nationalist heroes accustomed into crumbling autocrats, and all-around recession apparent the frailties basal advance rates. Cold War and interventions to advance a altered archetypal of association are not the same. When we acquire Westad’s analogue of intervention, ‘a concerted state-led accomplishment by one country to actuate the political administration of addition
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.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
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.
In the nineteenth, the political unification and industrialization causing many results in European nations’ growth in military power in the transatlantic. Towards the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, the political and military strength allowed the United States and Europe to wield unprecedented political, military, and influence around the globe. These powers in their military and politics were achievable by the ideologies, or isms, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Liberalism, nationalism, and socialism helped shape the political and economical structure of the North America and Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth century.
To understand the power struggle relating to foreign policymaking, it is crucial to understand what foreign policy entails. The Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State declares the goals of foreign policy as "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." While this definition is quite vague, the actual tools of foreign policy include Diplomacy, foreign aid, and military force.
Having understood that the world has taken the form it has through the domination or imperialism of Western countries, it is said that they are the agents that have greatly influenced the world; their ideologies in addition to their political as well as economic influences have spread across the globe through time (Headrick, 1981).
Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s only unquestioned superpower. How the United States evaluates its position as global hegemon has important consequences for American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the potential for future policy constraints. Thus, this paper seeks to consider the question: How durable is American hegemony? The paper first defines the state of American hegemony and then considers the primary challengers: Europe, Russia, China, Japan and imperial overstretch. It will conclude that in the long-term, East Asian geopolitical instability poses the greatest threat to American hegemony, but that in the short-term, the hegemony will prove to be quite durable as long as the United States can counteract the phenomenon of imperial overstretch. In order to diffuse both internal and international threats to hegemony, American leaders should work to pursue national interests within a framework of consensus and legitimacy as much as possible.
Wantchekon, L. (1999). Why do Resource Dependent Countries Have Authoritarian governments? NewHaven: Yale Universiy Press.
Weber, Smith, Allan, Collins, Morgan and Entshami.2002. Foreign Policy in a transformed world. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).