US foreign policy and history - Essay Example

US Foreign Policy 2009 US Foreign Policy Question The American Civil War of 1861 - 1865 remains the most severe military action the United States has been involved in. That war between the North and South would have great consequence upon the political, economic, military, and social life of the country in general and the states within it. Although these consequences have been discussed by several generations of American and foreign historians, the debate is still far from being over. Politically, the War resolved arguably the key problem that persisted since the American Revolution of 1776: it proved that the republic is capable of coping with both external and internal threats. Until the War many predicted that the US would follow the same pattern many republics did in the 18th and 19th centuries: either collapse into tyranny or suffer a series of overthrows and devastating civil wars. The victory of the North in the War unified the nation and convincingly proved the United States' viability as a federal republic: since the War ended in 1965, no state has attempted secede from the federation (McPherson, 1989). Besides, the War eliminated any doubts regarding supremacy of the Federal government over the states' authorities. Rights of the states have been significantly reduced after the War, while the power of national government strengthened. Another critically important outcome of the Civil War was abolishment of the slavery. The 13th Amendment, establishing the Freedmen's Bureau (March 1865) which provided food, medical aid, and education to freed people, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granting citizenship to blacks and authorized the federal government to protect their rights, and the 14th Amendment - these critically important documents have become the direct outcome of the Civil War. Evidently, the emancipation of 4 million slaves strongly affected economic life, social relations, and military institutions - literally each sphere of life - but in the first turn this accomplishment of the victors should be addressed as a political issue due to the following reasons. In the middle of the 19th century, the United States was powerful enough to equally compete with many European countries and be regarded as an influential international force. However, legalized slavery - an ugly anachronism of the Dark Ages - seriously undermined the country's reputation in the eyes of European countries (Brinkley et al, 1991). Although the legislative amendments failed to immediately win equal rights for black citizens, emancipation of slaves raised international prestige of the United States as a civilized country. One of the most often admitted reasons for the Civil War was determination of the South to preserve their traditional agrarian society based upon labor of slaves. Although the system brought large profits to the Southern slavocracy, it represented a huge contrast with the capitalist North were wage labor prevailed, which slowed down development of capitalism in the United States (McPherson, 1989). The Northern victory removed that harmful contrast, finally caused the Industrial Revolution in the South, and turned the American economic system homogeneous thus opening the way for further development of capitalist relations in the country. The War also stimulated the Northern industry. Producers of arms, munitions, canneries and meat packers made striking profits during the four years of war. A number of farmers had to take weapons and change their traditional occupation while the army required a lot of farm products -that combination of circumstances stimulated development of the farm machine industry and growing prosperity of Northern farmers. However, when the War was over, the farmers found out that rapid onset of new technical devices coupled with availability of new lands in the South dropped prices for the agricultural production. Many authorities admit that precisely at that time American farmers lost much of their former independence (Brinkley et al, 1991). Besides, the Northern industry obtained a huge market to reclaim: the Southern economic system was totally ruined by the war-end. The War was also a priceless military experience for the United States. The Civil War was the first large military conflict on the territory of the United States since the Independence War, which turned it into a perfect opportunity for American soldiers and officers to test their knowledge, potential, and confidence. In fact, the War laid the foundation of modern American Army - one of the best military organizations in the world. Although there are several opinions as for why did the South loose the Civil War, the economic factor seems to be the most important. They may argue Southern strategy was faulty (they did not take advantage of their defensive position), that Southerners lacked commitment and heart to properly protect their land against powerful Northern states, or that Lincoln's brilliant political decisions (the Emancipation Proclamation) and leadership were the decisive factor - yet neither of these factors alone was as critical as the difference in economic and human potential between the South and the North. Firstly, only nine of the nation's 31 million inhabitants resided in the Confederate states and about half of that figure were slaves (Angle, 1967: 7). Northern mines and refining industries were incomparably more powerful than those of the South; Northern infrastructure (railroads, telegraph, and roads) was much better than Southern; Northern farmers produced enough food to feed the Northern Army while Southern farmers continued to produce more profitable cotton (Catton, 1981: 143). These critically important differences coupled with the abovementioned reasons (failure to make use of the defensive position and lack of determination) determined the South's loss in the Civil war. As Bruce Catton, the world-famous expert on the Civil War, notes, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics" (Catton, 1952: 241). The American Civil War of 1861-1865 was exactly the case. Question 2 The Monroe Doctrine is probably one of most long-living political documents in history of world international politics. For more than 150 years it has been the basic principle of US foreign policies and many experts still believe that it continues to have serious influence of international policies of the US The Monroe doctrine and its various interpretations are the key to understanding contemporary political course of the US not only in Western Hemisphere, but also in the entire world. The Monroe Doctrine was articulated by President James Monroe in 1823 as a part of his annual address to the Congress. The main idea of Monroe's message was the following: until European powers doest not interfere with the US interests in Western Hemisphere, the United States would not interfere with European spheres of interest in Eastern Hemisphere. In a nut shell the Doctrine stated that, "The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs" (Monroe Doctrine, 1823). Authors of the Doctrine emphasized that the document must be viewed as anti-colonialist proclamation intended to prevent further colonization of South and Latin American countries by European states, such as Spain, France and Russian Empire. In its turn, the US planned to maintain neutral position in any clash taking place in Europe or European colonies in Eastern Hemisphere. Consequently, any military conflict taking place between a European country and its former colony in Americas would be viewed as action hostile toward the US: "But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States" (Monroe Doctrine, 1823). The first use of the doctrine - still unnamed document - dates back to year 1836 when UK tried to ally with Texas. The US objected this alliance citing the principles enunciated by President Monroe. The next occasion when the US government referred to the Doctrine took place in 1845 when UK and France made attempts to stop US annexation of Texas, while other European powers expressed certain plans for Yucatn. President's James Polk annual address to the Congress reasserted the main principles of Monroe Doctrine claiming that these principles had to be strictly enforced by the US (Dent, 1999). Over the decades that followed Monroe Doctrine has been applied several times to prevent European intrusion into American affairs. In 1852 Monroe's principles were used to remove Spain from Cuban island, while in the middle of 1860's the Doctrine backed up American opposition against attempts of Napoleon III of France to extend French influence to Mexico. Subsequently Monroe Doctrine has been re-interpreted and extended to further reinforce political status of the US in Western Hemisphere. One of the first serious extensions to the Doctrine dates back to the 1870's when President Ulysses S. Grant stated that the country would object any attempt of a European country to transfer its American colonies to another European country. Furthermore, in 1895 Richard Olney, US Secretary of State added to the Monroe Doctrine the right to mediate any disputes over borders between South American states (Dent, 1999). However, the most important interpretation of Monroe Doctrine was made in 1904 by President Theodore Roosevelt. The Roosevelt Corollary proclaimed the right of the US to make interventions. In fact, the Corollary provided a license for the US to practice its own form of colonialism (Collin, 1990). The ways Monroe Doctrine has been applied and interpreted over the 20th century continue to cause intensive debates and disagreement. Many politicians, especially European and Soviet, labelled the policy conducted by the US within the framework of Monroe Doctrine as isolationist claiming that the Doctrine turned into a declaration of hegemony of the US in Western Hemisphere. This opinion was backed up with statistics: over the period from 1846 to the late 1980th the US has undertaken around 30 military operations and 47 hidden interventions of various kinds in practically all Latin American states (Smith, 1994). Over the course of the Cold War, the Doctrine principles formed the core of US policy in Latin America. However, while in the 19th century Monroe Doctrine was used to stop further colonization of the region and secure trades, in the 20th century the goal of US government was entirely different: to prevent spread of Communism. President John F. Kennedy's statement pronounced on August 29, 1962 perfectly illustrated this goal: "The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it" (Kennedy, 1962). Using this approach the US provided military support to American states trying to prevent Communism from taking root in Latin and South America. Chile, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua became the most known examples of the US struggle against Communist threat in the region. With all adversities and controversies the Doctrine was arguably the major factor in turning the US into the leading power in the international political scene. Since European countries were not allowed to exercise their influence in the Americas, the US obtained an opportunity to play the dominant role in Latin and South Americas. Question 3 Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were outstanding statesmen of the 20th century whose diplomacy has had immense influence on modern policies of the United States. Intelligence, insightfulness, and creativeness that characterized both leaders allowed them to effectively deal with huge international challenges they faced during their presidencies. Balanced and forward-looking foreign policies implemented by Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt contributed greatly to the increasing international influence of the US after World War I and II respectively, and shaped the face of US foreign policies in the second half of the 20th century. Foreign policy conducted by Woodrow Wilson was twofold. On the one hand, Wilson went down to history as an idealist who promoted - internationally and domestically - the principles of morality and justice (Divine, 2007). On the other hand, foreign policies implemented by Wilson largely followed the patterns articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt. The essence of these policies was nationalism though Wilson toned down aggressive approach of his predecessors who was characterized as "open, aggressive, and high-spirited" (Divine et al., 2007, p.665) and adhered to more diplomatic methods. Wilson is known for his active and repeated interventions in the Caribbean region. He sent troops to stifle a revolution in Haiti and forced Dominican Republic that shared the island of Hispaniola with Haiti to agree to a treaty under which it was recognized a protectorate of the United States. Also Wilson purchased the islands known as the Danish West Indies (Virgin Islands) form Denmark and subsequently made them a part the Caribbean Empire under military government of the United Stated (Divine, 2007). Furthermore, he resorted to military force in relations with Mexico in the aftermath of the Mexican coup d'etat and "blocked Russian participation in the peace conference that ended" (Divine et al., 2007, pp.708) World War I. However, despite frequent use of military power and repeated interventions in the Caribbean region Wilson did take impressive efforts to promote the ideals of equality, morality and justice on the international scene. The Fourteen points of President Wilson expressly articulated during the Peace Conference in the aftermath of World War I reflected his highly idealist and pacifist views on the political developments in Europe. Many experts believed that excessively idealist and pacifist views of Wilson contributed to his failure to convince the Allies accept his position on the economic obligations and contributions of Germany (Egerton, 1978). Wilson's adherence to the principle of peace and non-violence was also obvious in his relationships with Latin American states. Thus Wilson was not happy with his predecessor's treatment of Colombia and apologised for that offering a monetary compensation (Divine, 2007). The fact that the United States entered World War I only in 1917 is another evidence of Wilson's reluctance to get involved in military conflicts, especially in Europe. Wilson never disguised his negative attitude toward war and force in international relations, and "believed in a principled, ethical world in which militarism, colonialism, and war were brought under control" (Divine, 2007, p. 694). Wilson can be considered the founding father of the United Nations organization: the League of Nations mentioned in his Fourteen Points was meant to help less powerful nation protect their right for self-determination and democracy. Wilson's presidency was marked by increasing importance of the US as a key international player, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt left an equally important trace in the history of US foreign relations. Cosmopolitan upbringing of Roosevelt, coupled with his service in the government of Wilson contributed greatly to the success of his international policies. As Arthur Schlesinger reasonably noted, "Woodrow Wilson, whom he [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, gave him the vision of a world beyond balances of power, an international order founded on the collective maintenance of the peace. F.D.R.'s internationalism used Teddy Roosevelt's realism as the heart of Wilson's idealism" (Schlesinger, 2003, pp. 3-4). In the first years of his presidency, Franklin D. Roosevelt had to deal with a number of difficult domestic affairs and took an isolationist position in his foreign policies. For example, despite his open support of Wilson's position for US entry into the League of Nations, Roosevelt renounced this idea. The rejection meant further isolation of the country from international organizations foreign policy and marked the end of major efforts taken by the leading European powers to establish a framework for international cooperation to cope with the global economic depression. Although such step might seem barely plausible from the international perspective, it did enable Roosevelt to conduct highly effective economic policy domestically without any reservations due to international obligations (Leuchtenburg, 1963, pp 199-203). The main initiative of Roosevelt in the realm of foreign policy was the so-called 'Good Neighbor Policy'. The essence of this initiative was revision of the US policies in Latin American region. Under the Monroe Doctrine this region was defined as an exclusively American sphere of interests. As a part of Roosevelt's initiative, American troops brought to Haiti during Wilson's presidency were withdrawn, and US military protectorate over Panama and Cuba was removed. The famous Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States signed by Roosevelt in 1933 renounced the right of US established by the Monroe Doctrine to unilaterally intervene in the affairs of Latin American states (Leuchtenburg, 1963, pp 203-210). During the late 1930s, Roosevelt gradually started to intensify his foreign policies drawing the nation's attention to global international issues. Overwhelmingly isolationist public opinion required from his to maintain neutrality, but Germany's military intervention in France in 1940 strengthened Roosevelt's positions enabling him to start material support of Great Britain that opposed Germany. And finally, in 1941, the United States joined the anti-German coalition of Britain and the Soviet Union after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (Wayne, 1957). The wartime foreign policy of Roosevelt was exceptionally balanced and eventually contributed to further strengthening of the United States as the key international player. Together with the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Roosevelt signed the Atlantic Charter in 1941. In that document Roosevelt identified the foreign policy priorities of the country including rejection of territorial aspirations, promotion of autonomous democratic governments, support of multilateral international trade agreements, and condemnation of military aggression (Divine, 1969). The principles reflected in the Atlantic Charter materialized in several treaties signed by Roosevelt during Casablanca Conference, Quebec Conference, Moscow conference, and Yalta Conference. Foreign policy conducted by Roosevelt during the last years of his presidency brightly illustrated his anti-imperialist sentiment and adherence to the principles of free international trade. Question 4 The neutrality debate that intensified in the middle of the 1930s undermined proponents of the traditional isolationist stance of the United States. Increasing tensions in Europe, strengthening of the Soviet Union, and emergence of Germany as a leading European state with aggressive ambitions not limited solely to European continent produced noticeable change in the traditionally isolationist American public opinion. As a result, Roosevelt who had previously been required to conduct isolationist foreign policy brought forth several new initiatives that ended the neutral status of the country. In his famous Quarantine Speech delivered in the late 1937, President Roosevelt condemned aggressor nations and suggested to treat them a threat to public health that should be "quarantined" (Roosevelt, 1937). At the same time, the US launched a large submarine building program to increase its long-range military potential against possible conflict with Japan. Attempted coup d'etat in Brazil further reinforced anti-German spirits in the United States: the Brazilian government openly stated that the German Ambassador had been one of the inspirers of the attempt. The involvement of Germany in Brazilian affairs conflicted with the Monroe Doctrine and produced great concern giving firm ground to the assumption that ambitions of Nazi Germany went far beyond European Continent and even Eastern Hemisphere (Divine, 1969). German aggression against the US allies in Europe was another contributing factor. In spring of 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway, and one month later occupied Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. As a result, Great Britain remained the only European power not controlled by Germany, and the invasion seemed to be only a matter of time - several months or years. Defeat of Britain that would have inevitably fallen short of coping with the extremely powerful and effective German military machine was not acceptable for the US. Despite opposition of still powerful isolationist camp, Roosevelt took advantage of the changed public opinion to increase military spending thus preparing the country for the forthcoming clash with the Axis powers (Divine, 2007). In March of 1941, the Lend-Lease Act was signed giving official start to US military help to the Allied states to oppose German aggression (Lend-Lease Act, 1941). Although the Act did not contain a single mentioning of any intention to declare war against the Axis powers, it was absolutely clear that the conflict became inevitable. Furthermore, prior to signing of the Act, in the fall of 1940, Roosevelt signed the Destroyers for Bases Agreement according to which 50 American destroyers were sent to Britain (Divine, 2007). These steps clearly showed that the United States rejected the principles of neutrality, non-intervention and isolationism. The Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is often perceived as the main contributing factor for the US' declaration of war. However, the pre-war developments some of which have been described above demonstrated that the attack was nothing but a mere pretext, while the genuine reasons were political and economic considerations, namely maintaining the balance of powers in Europe and military trade. These considerations had been thoroughly calculated and weighed by the US administration long before the country entered the war. Works Cited Angle, Paul M A Pictorial History of the Civil War Years Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1967 Brinkley, Alan, et al American History: A Survey New York: McGraw, 1991 Catton, Bruce, The Army of the Potomac: Glory Road Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1952 Catton, Bruce Reflections on the Civil War [Ed. John Leekley] First edition, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981 Collin, Richard H. (1990). Theodore Roosevelt's Caribbean: The Panama Canal, The Monroe Doctrine, and the Latin American Context, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Dent, David W., The Legacy of the Monroe Doctrine A Reference Guide to US Involvement in Latin America and the Caribbean, Greenwood Press, 1999 Divine, Robert, Roosevelt and World War II, Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1969 Divine, Robert A., Breen, T.H., Frederickson, George M., Williams, R. Hal, Gross, Ariela J., and Brands, H.W., America: Past & Present, Volume 2 (8th ed.), New York: Pearson/Longman, 2007 Egerton, George W. "Britain and the 'Great Betrayal': AngIo-American Relations and the Struggle for United States Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919-1920." Historical Journal, 21 (1978): 885-911 Franklin D. Roosevelt & Winston S. Churchill, The Atlantic Charter, August 14, 1941 [available online at http://www.internet-esq.com/ussaugusta/atlantic1.htm] JFK Press Conference, August 29, 1962, [available online at http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfk_press_conference_620829.html] The Lend-Lease Act, March 11, 1941 [available online at http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/lend-lease-act] Leuchtenburg, William E., Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940, New York: Harper and Row, 1963 May, Ernest R., The Making of the Monroe Doctrine, Harvard Univ. Press, 1975 McPherson, James M Battle Cry of Freedom: The Era of the Civil War, Ballantine Books 1989 Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823 [available online at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/monroe.htm] Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Quarantine the Aggressor, Chicago, U.S.A. 5 October 1937 [available online at http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/fdrquara.htm] Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., Woodrow Wilson, Times Books, 2008 Smith, G., The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945-1993, New York: Hill and Wang, 1994 Wayne S. Cole, "American Entry into World War II: A Historiographical Appraisal," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 43, No. 4. (Mar., 1957), pp. 595-617 Read More