An American Empire Is Better than Its Alternatives - Term Paper Example

Running Head: AN AMERICAN EMPIRE IS BETTER THAN ITS ALTERNATIVES An American Empire Is Better Than Its Alternatives 's name] Table Of Contents An American Empire is better than its Alternatives Introduction At present America seems to be better in some ways then its alternatives but it also seems to have its pit falls. Its setbacks seem to be in its international laws, human rights, and diplomacy. But when it comes to foreign policies and security there is no alternative. In this report I shall discuss how the American empire is the best alternative due to its foreign policy and security. I shall also discuss how America goes against international law and human rights and does not have strong diplomacy, thus making it worse then its alternatives. I shall also highlight how the new world order was disrupted by America. Discussion International Law and America Law on the international level is dependent on a state's acceptance to be subjected to the enforcement of laws. States must be willing to subject themselves into the international legal process. In international law, there is no single enforcement mechanism, which sometimes causes individuals to question the validity of international law. They question whether international law is a fundamental requirement of a modern, increasingly independent, global system of states and non-state actors. They question whether international law stops them from pursuing their self-interest (Damrosch etal 2001 p 14). In modern times, because of globalism, international law is a fundamental requirement for international relations. In the last 100 years, history has shown us that the absence of such laws can have detrimental consequences on the entire world. America lately has been ignoring the internal laws for its own self interest. The Bush administration has insisted on its right to unilaterally attack Iraq. To justify this end, the administration either ignored or conveniently reinterpreted UN articles or resolutions. It is no wonder that the vast majority of the international community did not support the Bush administration's conclusions. International opinion was that the attack on Iraq was illegal under the international laws of the UN. (http://www.123helpme.com/view.aspid=18686) Foreign Policy The United States has clearly defined their foreign policy's objectives and goals. While some groups claim that the United States acts as an isolationist body, the government works to improve the international community through negotiation and cooperation The United States maintains relations with nearly every nation state in the international system. The US also conducts frequent relations with many international organizations for a lot of different reasons While the United States has hundreds of goals and objectives of the foreign policy, it's most important goals currently are internationalism and multilateralism, national security, and limiting weapons of mass destruction (Walter 2001 p 2). A divided government within the United States sometimes makes it difficult to create clear strategies both domestically and internationally, nevertheless both groups are willing to compromise in order to deal effectively with any problems Traditional and current foreign policy objectives determine current relationships between the United States and other countries and various international actors. Traditional objectives of international security and trade have always shaped relations in the international system. Today, issues of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and Middle East peace also help shape relationships with the US abroad. The current policy objectives shape US international relations. Foreign policy activity and the decision making process have two driving motivations- an external, and a domestic or internal. The external motivation includes foreign activities, politics and policies that have an effect on US foreign policy. For example, external threats such as the Cuban Missile Crisis during the Cold War, and more recently, Sadam Hussein's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. On the other end of the spectrum, domestic politics plays a large role in influencing US foreign policy. For example, the diminishing public support for the "conflict" in Vietnam. That is, domestic considerations such as the idiosyncrasies and the role of the individual, the government, society and the system of government together influence the formation of foreign policy and action. A combination of each of these five domestic considerations (the idiosyncratic, role of individual, the government, society and the system) influences the US foreign policy. To what degree each of these have an effect on the decision making process is depends on the context of the situation. It is difficult to determine to what extent each of these considerations will have an affect on a specific decision because they are not all measurable. However, from possessing a basic knowledge of each variable and how they interconnect, one may derive a better understanding of how they together shape US foreign policy. Two more influential aspects of foreign policy making on the domestic level, are the governmental and societal. At the government level, the type of administration influences the actions and decisions taken. In a democratic system, such as the United States have different rules and norms by which they all interact and govern. It is also a system unique from a military regime with a single actor or a unified group because there different bureaucracies and government branches exist which are interacting together in the formation of a foreign policy. According to the bureaucratic decision making model, the country appears to be acting as a unitary actor, but underneath the surface there are competing bureaucracies (responding to society and public opinion on some level), who are mostly self-interested and concerned with self-preservation. Each formulates an understanding of the situation or an option with which the situation can be approached. As the chief decision maker, the president often has a difficult time picking and choosing from the advice of each branch to formulate a policy or course of action. In a democracy, the final decision made, does not match the public opinion because politicians (mainly the president) are held accountable for their actions in the next election. In a democratic system it is a politician's main goal to get re-elected, so they are often more apt to act in the interests of their constituents and follow public opinion. This is especially true of the president because his actions as "the chief decision maker" are viewed as his own, and are constantly portrayed in the media. Ergo, the societal and governmental considerations play an influential part in shaping US foreign policy. That is, the opinions and values of the public (as well as interest groups that represent those beliefs) are often an important consideration in a democracy's foreign policy decision-making. The vast amounts of resources both internationally and domestically have helped the United States to achieve the objectives of the foreign policy. The military, technology, and economics have shaped the relationships with the U.S. and other countries. The United States has relied on worldwide organizations to achieve foreign policy matters. All of these elements discussed have been beneficial for the U.S. in bringing the world together on agreements and conflicting issues. America and Security Bush's national security strategies have more advantages than disadvantages; the Strategy gives a narrower role for pre-emption. It discusses pre-emption in the specific context of defeating terrorists and rogue states. It by no means recommends that pre-emption has a role to play in raising any great threat via Russia, this helped the United States to gain support from China and Russia. The United States has been extensively looking for international support and cooperation since 9/11, the United States hope to gain support from China and Russia at UN Security Council. We can find this justify this intention from the Whitehouse's statement that "With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation, having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia. (whiteHouse.gov)" This statement has been clearly stated at the beginning of the White Book-"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America", showing that the United States is seeking support from it's former enemies by offering their friendship , so that the United States will be able to obtain support on issues such as counterterrorism. This policy serves the interests and advantages for both the United States and Russia. Moreover, United States is seeking opportunity to build up a good relationship with arising regional superpower-China. After 9/11, United States has strengthened cooperation with China for counterterrorism. United States and China have made progress in this area by establishing a legal office for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Beijing, 2002. Even though "U.S.-China relations were strained when an American spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet collided over Hainan Island in April 2001(asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/10/24/china.fbi/index.html)", the horrifying attacks of September 11 have given a positive effect on the relationship of both sides, both America and china have worked jointly in the United Nations in passing important U.N. Security Council resolutions, associated to terrorist financing. This improvement of US-China relation would absolutely give the United States opportunities for future cooperation and support from China on international affairs (Matthew p 2004 p 34). Furthermore, the United States has invented this policy so that its authority and legitimacy can strike at rogue states and states that support terrorists; so that the United States can eliminate threats to the homeland security and its allies from rogue states and terrorists attacks. We can find this statement in the White book, "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction--weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning. (www.Whitehouse.gov)" From this perspective, we can see that it would bring legitimacy to the United States to attack the rogue states and states that support terrorists. This is the advantage of the pre-emption that help the United States is to protect their homeland and allies from great danger. Human Rights America completely apposes human rights as an international law and prefers prosecuting their own citizens under their US Bill of Rights. The continual ignorance of certain countries in adhering to human rights, further damages the effectiveness of the international law in preventing abuse. For example, Zimbabwe still retains Robert Mugabe as leader, who is guilty of denying the freedom of political speech and widespread political imprisonment. Such an example forces one to question the degree of whether or not these 'laws' are really 'international (Julie 2004 p5)'. If they are not obeyed on a worldwide scale nor similarly enforced, then international law then this only serves the purpose of 'highlighting' human rights abuse rather than preventing it. The self interests of the nations is another reason why human right laws are not up-holded, this clearly demonstrates the weakness of international laws (Sean 2006 p 6). If leader nations such as the United States cannot bring themselves to agree to human rights preservation and justice such as Universal Jurisdiction, this brings a hypocritical attitude of the largely Western influenced human rights laws to the developing countries, which overall presents themselves as secondary and hence only 'highlighting' the importance of human rights' as opposed to enforcing them. America Diplomacy International diplomacy is a term that describes how the government uses the media to convey its ideas in order to influence other nations. Traditionally, diplomacy was a "government-to-government" approach that dealt with a country's officials. Currently, diplomacy harbours a "people-to-people" appeal, which focuses on the international public. International public diplomacy is an effort to "win the hearts and minds of millions. Typically, public diplomacy is heightened in times of crisis, whereas when there is peace, public diplomacy declines. Global communication plays a major role in the process of winning the hearts and minds of people during crisis. During cross-border crises and instability, international public diplomacy can use global communication to extend its message to nations. In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, for example, America and Britain showed just how well communication across borders succeeds. On American soil, President Bush made a "direct appeal" to the British people in lieu of the British lives that were lost in the terrorist attacks. As a result, American and British officials were able to communicate their policies effectively to one another, and they were able to do so in a public manner. On British soil, Queen Elizabeth showed her sympathy for Americans during a changing of the guard's ceremony, in which the American national anthem was played. These depictions of America and Britain as allies show the world that public diplomacy and global communication could be a means to an end of terrorism. The problem therein lies with global communication and international public diplomacy of America with the Arab world. Following the attacks, America did not effectively communicate with the Arab people in a manner that would help public diplomacy. America failed in its cultural sensitivity toward the Arab people in its effort to relay messages. The uneducated Arab people understand messages that have an emotional appeal to them. This is how the lone Osama bin Laden, living in a cave, reeled the Arab people into believing his opinions. On the other hand, America inefficiently used explanations and logic in an attempt to get its message across to the Arab people. Consequently, this resulted in the depleted support for the end in terrorism. To fix this problem, America needs to learn how to communicate effectively by having a vast understanding of foreign cultures. America needs to continue with the "people-to-people" approach of that new public diplomacy direction. Most importantly, America must help restore peace, America must repress human rights abuse and America must stop aggressive acts. By combining these actions with effective global communication and positive international public diplomacy, the world may be well on its way to improved relations because actions speak louder than words. New World Order The term "new world order" has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order) The "NEW world Order" was supposedly based on world peace and opulence for all. The proposal was soon to be analysed in its utility or ignorance in the period of the Gulf war in1990-1. As a result far more convoluted political issues - structures of world disorder and advanced methods of intervention took place after 1991. The New World Order failed to act at a detrimental time in Africa - Somalia when genocide had occurred; outside intervention was required and the outside support was not responding as tragedy took place. The New World Order had no regulations to when it would intervene or when it was fit to demonstrate its power. The events of September the 11th gave confirmation to the notion "Globalisation creates global interdependence, and international terrorism exposes this without pity. The necessity for global political responses is made obvious, even when the world's superpower tries to resist them. The new world order of Bush pre and his successor, Bill Clinton, has been replaced by the new world disorder of Bush fils. Under the second Bush's administration, the economic and political rationale behind the Washington Consensus of the 1990s has unravelled, forcing a radical change to our perceptions of which countries are and are not safe for business. Negotiating this new environment will require companies to more rigorously evaluate political events and their contexts than they are used to doing and more carefully assess the links between the political, economic, and financial factors of risk. The new world disorder raises the potential risks and rewards of the specific tactical choices companies make. They will need to be more careful in selecting which markets to enter and how to position themselves in them. (The exhibit "Risk in the New World Disorder" summarizes how the risk factors have changed.)( www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgicmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12884669) Ironically, the second President Bush put the final nail in the coffin of the new world order. Even before September 11, the administration was signalling that it had a very different vision of international engagement from its predecessor's, one based on security, not economic concerns. And security was now defined not just in the narrow Cold War terms of safety from attack from a hostile; though stable, superpower, but very broadly to include safety from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, as well as vital economic inputs such as oil. Conclusion Thus it can be said that America is a good alternative when it comes to foreign policies and security, but a bad alternative when it comes to human rights, international law and diplomacy. So it can be said to its citizens, it is the best alternative but internationally it's the worse alternative. References asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/10/24/china.fbi/index.html retrieved on 24 October 2007 Damrosch, Lori F., et el. 2001. International Law. St. Paul: West Group p 14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order retrieved on 24 October 2007 http://www.123helpme.com/view.aspid=18686 retrieved on 24 October 2007 Julie Mertus 2004; Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy Routledge; 1 edition p 5 Matthew Brzezinski 2004; Fortress America: On the Frontlines of Homeland Security --An Inside Look at the Coming Surveillance State, Bantam publications p 34 Sean D. Murphy 2006, Principles of International Law Concise Hornbook Series, Thomson West; 1 edition p6 Walter Russell 2001;Mead Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World Knopf; 1st edition p 2 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgicmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12884669 retrieved on 24 October 2007 www.whitehouse.gov retrieved on 24 October 2007 Read More