US Foreign Policy - Assignment Example

?Part It is generally assumed that there are four proposed future scenarios for the United s. These include Future Lead the World to Democracy, 2. Future 2: Protect U.S. Global Interests, 3. Future 3: Build a More Cooperative World, 4. Future 4: Protect the U.S. Homeland. Of these futures, which is the more likely approach to succeed? Introduction There are generally four assumed future scenarios for the United States. These future scenarios include: leading the word to democracy; protect united states global interest; protect the united states homeland; and or building a more comparative world; of these four assumed futures, the united states is more likely to succeed in future in protecting its global interest much better than any other approach. With the current state of international instability, the United States is more likely to venture successfully in protecting its global interests both in economic and political benefits. Discussion The approach of protecting the United States global interest is more likely to succeed in the future given the Americans strong believe that their country should take the leadership position in the world. Even though this does not necessarily mean that the United States should take the watchdog role over the world, the support and conviction of American citizens is likely to create an internationally active united states that is capable of effectively pursuing its global interests. Additionally, scenarios taking place in other nations and in fact the whole world are cable of affecting the United States and indeed the interests of its citizens. This approach is more appreciated now more than ever especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Bartholomees, 2006). In addition, it is quite evident that the United States prefers multilateralism rather than unilateralism. To Hough, (2008), Americans have a strong conviction that it is more effective and certainly better to boost cooperation with other nations of the world in an effort to realize the nations’ (US) interest than it could be to work against these nations the rationale behind these approach is that it is more cost effective considering that the united states partners in the globe can willingly share the burden. Thus whilst the invasion of Iraq drummed overwhelming support from the American citizens, their willingness to bear the burden of rebuilding that nation is unclear and this necessitated the assistance of other states. Generally, the United States is known to support the promotion of other nations market based economy or capitalism, free trade and democracy. This is a clear indication that America is more likely to succeed in future through this approach even though as a matter of fact, other values may be prioritized in certain instances, and even though these values may generally serve the united states global interest, the united states national interest takes priority. Consequently, these values perused by the United States are the core values and embracing of these values by other nations is perceived as a positive development. These make the protection of US global interest approach more likely to succeed in future. Furthermore, with the Americans believe that confrontation of international terrorism ought to be prioritized; the country’s global interest is more likely gain momentum if future as more nations in the world are coming up in support of this policy. Conclusion Indeed, even though there are generally four assumed future scenarios for the United States protection of the United States among these four assumed futures is more likely to succeed in future. This approach is supported by Americans strong believe that their country should take the leadership position in the world, the country’s preference of multilateralism rather than unilateralism, and Americans believe that confrontation of international terrorism ought to be prioritized. Part 2 Question 2 of 4. Assess what type of structural constraints - if any - the US Congress imposes upon the presidency in general and the Bush administration in particular. Introduction In the area of foreign policy, the constitution of United States enshrines the relevant powers and mandates of the congress. These powers include: declaring war, treaty, conformation of officials, making appropriations, raising and maintaining the country’s armed forces, regulating trade with foreign nations, oversight authority, and controlling immigration and naturalization. According to Grant & Ashbee, (2002), it is worth noting that the constitutional system which provides for the shared role of the president and the congress in the Treaty power and war power presents an invitation to strive for the honor of directing the foreign policy of America. Discussion As stated by Clinton Rossiter, foreign policy arena may be classified into two sectors which include the designing of policy and the execution of this policy. Under the former sector, the president is restricted by the congress as he or she has to confer with the congress. However, the president is at liberty to carry out the later sector without consulting with the congress. Even though the president might execute the second sector at his own peril, congress has further placed some constraints on the actions of the president through the Foreign Aid and Military Sales Restrictions, War powers Act (Foley & Owens, 2006). In 1936, the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of power distribution between the congress and the president in the case involving U.S. vs. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation. In this case, the supreme court of the United States noted that the presidency of United States has the independent and inherent authority in foreign policy, and that the power to listen or speak as a representative of the country is vested on the president alone. Court however, noted that these powers of the president had some limitations. The first limitation is that the inherent and independent presidential powers were confined only on foreign trade but do not surface on the powers over war. Further, the court noted that the inherent and independent powers of the president did not in any way overshadow congressional authorization action of the executive. During the war in Iraq, there were several constrains that the congress imposed on the Bush administration. These constraints come about following the constitutional mandates that the congress shares with the president. While on one hand President Bush was the commander in chief of the American armed forces, he lack the authority or power to declare war, make the rules that would guide the air, naval, and land forces he also never had the power to raise and support armies. The only body that had such powers was the congress. Thus while president Bush was in possession of the sword as the commander in chief of the American army, the congress on the other hand held the mandate to raise and support the armies in regard to the appropriation process (Kimberley, 2007). Conclusion It quite clear that there are several structural constraints the US Congress imposes upon the presidency in general. These constraints are punctuated by the powers vested on the congress and the presidency such that while the president has the constitutional mandate as a commander in chief of the American armed forces as well as the top most federal government executive officer, the congress on the other hand have the power to declare war, control the budget, ratify treaties, oversight responsibility, approval of presidential appointees, as well as the legislative duty. These powers impose structural constraints on the US presidency in general. Part 3 Question 3 of 4 using one specific example; discuss the impact of American values on the development of the foreign policy.  Introduction Even though foreign policy is influenced by character of the nation, it is largely affected by the events in the international arena. United States generally spearhead the promotion of free trade, democracy, and market based economy, even though other values in some instances may take priority. According to Wilson, (2004), the promotion of the aforementioned values is always undertaken in consideration of the national interest of US. A majority of Americans are of the view that the foreign policy of America should serve purposes that are altruistic and free from US national interest. For altruistic values or purposes, America has in several occasions been involved in military interventions even in instances where the intervention is not directly related to national interest but rather to moral obligation. Discussion The influence of the American values on the development of the foreign policy was seen in the rhetoric posed by Penn, Mark (1999) who asked; that of the proposed duty of America in the world, which is closer to your perspective­?.... America should only intervene to protect its own national interests since it does not have the duty to maintain world peace, or the US need to intervene sometimes in resolving conflicts that do not threaten the interest of America directly. The majority of Americans chose the humanitarian response while only a minority went for the counterargument. This is a clear indication that the United States humanitarian values have an impact in developing a foreign policy such as military intervention. One of the core values of the US is maintaining peace, stability, and equality among all individuals. Study shows that a majority of American congressmen, women, and the citizens alike are of the view that the country has a moral obligation as a superpower to intervene in scenarios such as civil wars or genocide. A study conducted in 2005 indicated that about 69% of the American citizens were in support of the view that United States and indeed other European powers have a moral responsibility to engage where need be military force, to prevent and protect a section people committing humanitarian crimes against others (Dobson & Marsh, 2006). Thus, when innocent civilians suffering in other nations or they are being massacred, and a peace keeping operation is organized by the UN , US in most cases is very much willing to add some forces regardless of whether or not the contribution serves the interest of US. Interestingly, the impact of American values like the need to solve humanitarian crisis has been quite evident in development of the foreign policy such as military intervention inspired by altruistic purposes other than those directly related to national interests. Study shows that altruistic reasons such as dealing with humanitarian crisis was prioritized in developing foreign policy other than self interest as search for oil supply among others (Foley & Owens, J.2006). Conclusion Even though the development of foreign policy in America is filled with so many paradox and sometimes contradictions, the impact of American values cannot be underestimated in their contribution. Military intervention as a foreign policy has been b developed by the US government not for purposes of the country’s interest as many people would want to believe, but for altruistic reasons such as dealing with humanitarian crisis, and to ensure that peace and justice prevails all over the world. Part 4 Question 4 of 4-.The worldview of a U.S. president and his foreign policy team can impact the decision-making process for foreign policy. Reviewing the actions of the current and previous administration, assess the validity of the previous statement. Be sure to fully defend your position through the use of reference sources and specific examples. Introduction Under the bush administration terrorism remained as the predominant foreign policy, on the other hand, the then south Korean president was making a serious attempt to create a stable security was in dare need of in order to expand economic ties and enhance rapid reunification with north Korea. The policy of peace and prosperity introduced by south Korea was frustrated by the Washington administration which sought to isolate north Korea from south Korea and indeed the whole world for its engagement in nuclear. Discussion The US president and his foreign policy team became a major obstacle to South Korea’s approach through the action of containment taken toward North Korea. This action by the Washington administration was sought to oblige North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs, this was realized by imposing political and economic sanctions on the country by the US president Bush and his foreign policy team. After North Korea admitted in 2002, its involvement with programs of clandestine HEU weapons, President Bush and his foreign policy team vowed to force Pyongyang understand that it could not get into negotiations with a nation involved with production of such weapons (Amitai, 2007). In an attempt to design the foreign policy against North Korea, President Bush and his foreign policy team caused some unforeseen outcomes in respect to South Korea and these reactions changed significantly the perspective of Seoul about the tension that was rising between the United States and Pyongyang. The first reaction was to perpetuate presidential aspirants with radical and ant Washington sentiments who were determined maintain the nuclear program in North Korea. Lee the presidential aspirant who was endorsed by the US government won the presidency in South Korea however, after some US military men were acquitted of criminal negligence having run over two South Korean school girls, the regime of President Lee who was endorsed by US felt that executing the US policy against North Korea is a big liability. Thus in imposing sanctions on North Korea, President Bush and his foreign policy team questioned the Sunshine policy and its legitimacy. The US also formulated the agenda of the presidential election in South Korea. According to Foley & Owens, (2006), the tailored containment policy of President Bush and his foreign policy team further enabled president Roh after his inauguration to seek public support to be boosting the Sunshine policy. This was a direct anti -American policy. In addition, the newly elected South Korean president Roh reintroduced the country’s role in mending the relationship with North Korea the president sent delegates to North Korea for negotiations. This was practically a direct opposition of South Korea to Washington policy. Conclusion It is indeed true that the worldview of a U.S. president and his foreign policy team can impact the decision-making process for foreign policy. During President Bush regime, there were several actions that were taken in respect foreign policy that affected the decision-making process for foreign policy. A case in mind was the tailored containment policy of President Bush and his foreign policy team which was meant to isolate North Korea and abstract the unification of the two Korea due to the fact that the North was undertaking nuclear weapon program. However, even though this policy worked for a short time, South Korea later initiated the re unification process with their North counterparts following the tension that was brewing between Washington and Seoul. This reunification process was a direct contrast of Bush administration of none negotiation with countries dealing with nuclear weapons. References Amitai, E. (2007). Security first: for a muscular, moral foreign policy The Future of American Democracy Series. Yale University Press. Amitai, E. (2007). Security first: for a muscular, moral foreign policy The Future of American Democracy Series. Yale University Press. Bartholomees, B. (2006). U. S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy. Second Edition Revised and Expanded. JHU Press. Benton, T. (2009). A history of the working of the American government. Washington: Princeton University. Dobson A., & Marsh, S.(2006). US foreign policy since 1945 The making of the contemporary world Taylor & Francis. Dobson A., & Marsh, S.(2006). US foreign policy since 1945 The making of the contemporary world Taylor & Francis. Foley M., & Owens, J. (2006) Congress and the Presidency: Institutional Politics in a Separated System. Washington: Prentice Hall corp. Foley M., & Owens, J. (2006) Congress and the Presidency: Institutional Politics in a Separated System. Washington: Prentice Hall corp. Grant, A. ,& Ashbee, E. (2002). The Politics Today companion to American government. Hough, P. (2008). Understanding Global Security. Washington: Taylor & Francis. Morrison, P., & Tsipis, K. (2002). Reason enough to hope: America and the world of the twenty- first century. MIT Press. Stokes, D., & Sam, R. (2010). Global Energy Security and American Hegemony Themes in global social change. JHU Press. Foley M., & Owens, J. (2006) Congress and the Presidency: Institutional Politics in a Separated System. Washington: Prentice Hall corp. Kimberley, J. (2007). Governing the American state: Congress and the new federalism. Wilson, E. (2004) Diversity and U.S. foreign policy: a reader Routledge, Merrill, D., & Paterson, T. (2009). Major Problems in American Foreign Relations: Since 1914 Cengage Learning. Read More