Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Us hegemony in the 20th century
The Hegemony of the US in the 21st century
Challenges in international communication
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Us hegemony in the 20th century
The American foreign policy paradox is that the country is too powerful to be challenged by others but not powerful enough to achieve its goals by going at it alone. In a time where the international system is complex, the notion of the American hegemony can be dangerous. The U.S. is unparallel with its military power, but equal in terms of economic powers. Considering the increase in transnational communications, a unilateral foreign policy will fail to accomplish preserving its interests. Soft power enables the U.S. to achieve its goals through allies. Joseph Nye is one author interested in the resources that soft power offers for foreign policy. America can use its soft power by thinking about how it looks in terms of other countries. There …show more content…
In order for American to be viewed more positively it needs to change the style of foreign policy to be more attentive to the view of others. Nye says one way to accomplish this is for America to increase its public diplomacy, to reach out to people generally. This could occur in the short, medium, and long term. In the short term, the U.S. will have to become more responsive to explaining and responding to current events. An example of this is to work more effectively with Arab media outlets. In the medium term, policymakers need to develop a better strategy to explain U.S. policies and trademark the country as a democratic nation. The most important is the long-term strategy that is develops a more open Middle Eastern society with cultural and educational relations . These are goals that will take time to see progress. To be effective, the U.S. must prioritize the use of soft power. The U.S. is a giant and others are bound to have certain suspicious about us. With the U.S., there is a love/hate relationship. People admire the U.S. for some things and hate the U.S. for other things. America must make policies that change the ratios that the love part is stronger than the fear
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.
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
In conclusion, this extensive review of American foreign policy is just very broad. This topic is his shortened summary of a broad topic in a narrative arrangement, if they contributed anything to the historical understanding of this book. Ambrose and Brinkley made the topic very fascinating and easier to comprehend than a plain textbook. By writing Rise to Globalism and narrating stories without including unnecessary truths and statistics. Thanks to this book, I gained a more thorough understanding of the struggles in the Middle East after Vietnam and a new perception on where American presently stands in the world.
The relations between the U.S and the Middle East are strained at best. The troops deployed in the area face constant threat of attack by a militant group. These broken relations between the U.S and the Middle East started over 50 years ago, with the Iran Hostage Crisis. Root causes of the crisis were many. One was U.S greed over oil in Iran. The second, the coup in Iran organized and funded by the CIA. The U.S dependence on foreign oil is another cause of the problems. Lastly, should the U.S stop moving into other countries sovereign lands and trying to “Prevent the evil of communism”, the nation would not have so many problems around the world. This worry was even shown in Iran (Kinzer, 10). While often blamed on radicals, the strained relations between the U.S and the Middle East are a direct result of a poor US foreign policy.
According to Wright, this decline in the unipolar concert “marks the return of geopolitical competition and presents a significant challenge for U.S. strategy” (Wright, 8). Many believe that these country were not too concerned with global power until it saw the U.S. weak
President Nixon and Henry Kissinger both believed that the US could ensure its national security and promote its interests by establishing stronger diplomatic relations with the big powers and through that control and influence their decision-making. The US wanted to be the center of this multipolar world, but this could only be achieved by downplaying the importance of ideology towards the Soviet Union and to open up towards China, “(…) which the United States had...
In 1825, a group of American businesspeople announced the formation of a canal building company, with interests in constructing a canal system across the Isthmus. This project was to take place in an area now called Panama. The endeavor was filled with controversy. Though the canal itself was not built until the early 1900's every step toward the building and ownership, was saturated with difficulty.
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.
...wed for it to write the rules of the game, create well established institutions that are respected by the majority worldwide, and have inspired other countries to follow in its footsteps in search of their own version of the “American Dream”. However, the decisions that generated that American prosperity were based on the notion that concessions, accountability and investment towards the future were crucial for its later success. As seen in hindsight, somewhere throughout history, this message became heavily influence by personal gains and short term gratification. If the United States wants continue as a key player, it will need to solve its domestic qualms with in turn have and continue to affect the international community. Military dominance, cultural influence and innovation cannot sustain itself in an environment that lacks stability and long term planning.
The Soviet Union’s collapse at the end of the Cold War left the United States without its major global rival. Now alone at the top, the United States’ strategic imperatives have shifted remarkably. The shift has been significant enough to prompt fundamental questions about the international order and whether this new “unipolar moment” will last. Indeed, since 1989, political scientists have clamored to define the United States’ status relative to the rest of the world. Indispensable nation? Sole super...
What the US does in other countries usually ends up creating a conflict or an uprising in the
Progressive era foreign policy was motivated by a variety of factors including racial and national superiority, business and economic interests, strategic concerns, and idealism. Excerpts from For the Record provide various examples supporting the concerns that led to America’s foreign policy.
The United States has steadily expanded its military presence in the Middle East. In ordering deployments, American officials have demonstrated the United States intentions: the US will not permit a hostile state to acquire the ability to obstruct the free flow of oil from the Gulf to major markets in the West.
Relations among the major Western powers fit a model of complex interdependence very well. The United States has significant disagreements with its European and Asian allies over trade and policy, but it is hard to imagine a circumstance in which the United States would use military power against any of these allies. Instead, the United States relies on economic pressure and incentives to achieve its policy aims.