American Foreign Policy - Assignment Example

American Foreign Policy American foreign policy has often been characterized as a fluctuating between an idealist and realist (pragmatist) pole. Discuss the validity of this characterization using the Bush and Obama Administrations as the case studies. Naturally the major objectives of foreign policy are: to ensure self-preservation and to satisfy self-interest of a nation or state. In the process of formulating foreign policy to achieve these two primary objectives, two important factors come into play: the international environment, and the national character. The ways of dealing with the two determinant factors differ between the realist approach and the idealist approach; the two approaches that have been exercised by different American leaders while each still adopts the same objectives of foreign policy1. How do these divergent approaches achieve foreign policy with the same goals? We analyze the realist foundations upon which President Bush’s administration was based versus the idealist foundations upon which President Obama’s administration is based. To achieve this, the paradigms of realism which underlay Bush’s foundation are hereafter explored2. The tenets of realism that Bush administration grew on included: firstly, nations or countries are the vital targets of foreign policy but their interactions complicate the attempts to influence their inherent natures. Second, a state’s material resource base (regarded as its power) relative to others determines its projected interests. The more the resource base the more it seeks to expand its political influence over lesser nations with cost/benefit analysis subtly influencing any relationships born. Therefore, according to realists, American power could and should be used to restrain states that could clearly harm the U.S. and its interests, (American interests are considered here to encompass political and economic)3.This disposition clearly enumerates those nations whose economies are currently emerging with the threat of toppling United States off the perch. This is an obvious manifestation of how realistic opinions in foreign policy formulation propose war with other nations which may not have declared war on America. As it will be stated in the course of the discussion, realists use military interventions to solve such threats. It is important to see this misguided application of military on economical wars. In fact the undertones of U.S. being in pursuit of resources from other countries, mostly oil, and wary of emergent nations like China have been growing louder. The U.S. involvement in other countries has largely been driven by idealistic opinions under Bush administration4. Three, realists focus on harmonizing relations among the major powers due to potential threat they pose to the international system. No great power or coalition of great powers should dominate or endanger a nation or a group of nations. In this sense, the U.S. should focus on strengthening its alliances and on challenging some states, although prudently and selectively. Clearly it borders impossibility that realist’s approach by this doctrine will be able to mitigate threats to international system. The reason is that it is contradictory and hypocritical5. How can America propose that no great power should dominate or endanger a nation or group of nations when itself it intends to do what it takes, including using military on any nation that poses any form of threat, economic or political, to safeguard its self-interest? United States is not alone in this world. Global resources must be shared and conflicts of interests are therefore inevitable on global arena. It will be selfish of America to suppress other nations in this respect. Also worth noting is that by applying realists approach, Bush’s administration opted out of international institutions and treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and opposed American humanitarian interventions that, according to them, “had no clear strategic rationale.” But here it purports to protect the international system6. What policies did Bush administration resolve when it took charge from 2001? Bush’s intentions were to develop “distinctive American internationalism” that is to narrow the focus of American national interest than his predecessors. The second one is prioritizing refurbishment of American alliances across the world as a tangible manifestation of managing great power relationships. Europe and Asia would be the highest foreign policy priorities, because they were home to long-time allies and potential rivals. Third, Russia and China were viewed skeptically than they had been by the Clinton administration and American military capacity would be important for exercising American influence over them7. China for example should be viewed as emerging power and as competitor, not strategic partner. Fourth, “hard power” would be preferred over “soft power” for dealing with the international system. Hard power uses military capacity, suctioning and threats, (the threat that realists like Bush intend to prevent in the international system) among other coercive measures, as ways to influence the behavior of nations. Fifth, and in line with refurbishing alliance and with the use of hard power, the remaking and strengthening of the American military would be a top priority in terms of increased military pay and increased military spending. Having comprehensively evaluated Bush’s realist approach in developing foreign policy, it is easier and economical in terms of words for contrasting the two, to depict Obama’s pragmatic approach to the same just by way of example illustrations. He began by respecting international laws and treaties for example the New START nuclear arms reduction with Russia. Two, Obama has emphasized on multilateralism, unlike unilateralism by his predecessor Bush. He signed long-delayed free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. He is also working to promote a new trans-Pacific free trade agreement. The trade negotiation with China, which previously was viewed as enemy, totally contradicts the realists’ practice of dominion over nations8. Withdrawal of troops from Iraq signified not employing militarized approach to democracy. It does not come as a surprise that despite upholding idealistic opinion and approach, he has succeeded in capturing Osama bin Laden, him and not any other administrator. Realists thought they had a better approach to it. How could one pursue bin laden in countries which were perceived as adversaries? It was not possible since such countries could easily make use of Bin Laden to pay themselves for the American hatred. They could hide him and supply him to successfully carry out whatever he so wishes against America. By bringing these formerly adversaries on board, capturing Bin Laden was achieved. Bibliography Klaus L. and Ann L. The Cold War Essential reading. New York: Wiley-Blackwel, 2001. McCormick J. American Foreign Policy and Process. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009 Painter D. The Cold War: An international history. New York: Routledge, 1999 Discuss the impact of the American historical experiences on the development of the foreign policy of the United States. In your response, provide specific case studies in support of your argument. There is no other historical experience that could shape the nature of the American foreign policy other than the events from the World War II to date. As it appears, initially, United States had little to do with the war but as it later turned out to be there was no way of evading what was happening globally. The following section explore why the U.S. get involved and the lessons learnt9. First we look at the significance of what caused the war. Basically, the WWII started with the emergence of the Nazi party in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Obsessed by the idea of the superiority of the pure German race, he believed that war was the only way to gain the necessary “Lebensraum” meaning “living space” for that race to expand; in other words, to achieve self-conservation and meet self-interests. This is similar to what the realists believes in the U.S., that U.S. is special and that use of warlike tactics are the only way to achieve the underlying basic principles of self-conservation and self-interests10. I cannot absolutely say they borrowed the same idea but the similarity here can be seen. Hitler also violated the Versailles Treaty by secretly arming Germany. In the process he rejected the treaty. Again, here, the typical realists’ practice in America has been depicted. The former American leaders who were realists opted not for the international institutions. American has always believed that not strong nation should rule over other nations. This opinion may have been shaped, among other experiences, by the growing unchecked aggression of Hitler in the wake of WWII. Hitler invaded Australia, annexed Czechoslovakia before forming allies with the Soviet Union. This partnership with the Soviet Union would later shield him from confronting two enemies at once during his intended invasion of Poland. This was a strategic alliance which when closely considered, involved the cost benefit analysis of the international relationships that takes the center stage of U.S. foreign policies especially as conceived by the realists. The hapless Poland easily went down under attack from both Soviet Union and Germany. It should be obvious why the American realists would deter superpowers from colonizing younger nations and even opt for the balance-of power to mitigate threat in the international system. The issue of dealing with threat emerges when the Germany signed an agreement with the Soviet Union which had hitherto been quiet together with the U.S., France and Britain. The latter three nations were shocked by the agreement and it sparked restlessness. Britain and France took on Germany led by Hitler in conjunction with the Soviet Union led by Joseph Stalin. The threat was real in that Germany and Soviet Union were a formidable force. They took over so many territories and stretched the capability of the Britain forces to the attainable limits. There was no other possible source of help if not the U.S. which Britain turned to in 194111. There was also the threat of the Japanese aggression which became real when U.S. was attached in 1941, at the naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. The Americans were clearly provoked owing to the fact that it had not engaged in the war. Today the issue of dealing with provocation remains enshrined in the U.S. foreign policy. It is stated, that the U.S. shall not involve in any war unless provoked. Japan was successful in several occasions and the U.S. had to painstakingly learn had to technologically project above the adversaries12. This too forms the opinion of most Americans. The U.S. has to protect it technological advancements from other nations in the process of keeping self-conservancy and self-interest. The technological advancement of the U.S. was marked by the use of atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945, in Japan. As the U.S. and the Soviet Union emerged as the superpowers, the U.S. predicted another threat: that the Soviet Union could pursue the same nuclear technology and the American interests and conservancy would be compromised. The Cold war began immediately after the Second World War. It involved the heavily armed Soviet Union and the U.S each in strong competition against each other. With the looming state of conflict of interests between these two nations which could them exercise their military strength over each other, American realists adopted the balance-of-power instead of considering to involve international institutions to reach a state of harmony13. This was later remarkably evident in Bush’s administration in that he rejected international institutions and was wary of any nation that posed threats in terms of nuclear weapons for example North Korea and Iraq. The use of military to coerce nations to conform to the superior’s needs of achieving self-interest also began during this period especially after the same technique was used by the superpowers to establish their geo-strategic areas of control and sphere of influence. The U.S. learnt that in a circumstance where there is strong competition over superiority, the use of military is the only way out to decide between the contestants. This is the reason why it has invested a lot in its military and uses it in the international arena. Bibliography Duigan P. and Gann H. The Cold War: End and aftermath. New York: Hoover Press, 1996. Eugene W., Kegley C. and Scott J. American Foreign Policy, 6th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003. Klaus L., Ann L. The Cold War Essential reading. New York: Wiley-Blackwel, 2001. Analyze the foreign policymaking process in terms of actors, issues, strategic goals, and outcomes. In a policy making process, the actors are involved. They are driven by different opinions over issues at stake which primarily consists of the nation’s self-conservation and self-interests. They propose strategies and goals as well as projecting the impacts of their strategies in relation to achieving the primary objectives. These are presented as widely divergent or moderately concurrent views or both14. During foreign policy formulation; three kinds of actors are usually involved. They include: professional actors, elected and appointed officials and the nongovernmental forces which include interest groups, the media and the public. Each of these groups contribute differently to the policy making process. The professional actors represent a group that is vested with the ability to analyze the relevance or the suitability of policy strategies towards achieving the primary objectives. This group is expected to be drawn outside the stakeholder political parties of the nation so that they can be able to project unbiased and non-partisan analysis of the strategic proposals. They have or are expected to have the understanding of the political, social and economic structures both the target foreign nations and the mother nation so that they can draw near-perfect strategic conclusions. The professional actors are therefore sourced from the fields of political, social and economic disciplines15. Elected and appointed officials provide the most divergent views in the policymaking process. This is owing to the fact that their opinions are merely driven by their political backgrounds and subjective judgments16. This group includes the president, the congress and all other elected members of the parliament, both the ruling and the opposition parties. In this group the collision between realists and idealists opinions is always imminent and has played out as seen in some periods during Obama’s administration. The last category is the nongovernmental forces whose influence in the policy making process is rather weaker. They include the media, the public and the interest groups. There, however, mainly two prominent policy making participants: the president and the congress. The two share most responsibility in the process and in effect end up in a conflict. The president often exercise his presidential powers in the policy making process while the congress exercise its congressional powers in the decision making process. The foreign policy powers shared between the president and the congress include: while the president has the power to make war, being the commander in chief of armed forces; the congress has powers to declare war17. Two, while the president is fully charged with making commitments to treaties and partnerships; the congress must provide the two-thirds majority of senators for the policy to be effective. Three, as the president nominate and appoint office bearers: the congress must consent to it. The main issue that has always rocked the foreign policy making process has been the tug of war between these two actors. After the WWII, the U.S. put emphasis on the national security in the foreign policy18. As a result the congress established the National Security Council to take charge of policy making process in which it served to advice the president on the integration of the domestic, foreign and military policies. The framework for the policy making process as guided by the NSC included: policy coordination, policy advise, policy planning, policy legitimization, crisis decision making forum, influence budgetary decisions, education and communications and creation of a national security community. Policy outcomes, irrespective of who drives the process are the consequences of the actions input by these actors during the policy making process. They include both the intended and unintended consequences19. The outcomes may directly affect the public problem at which they are directed. However, the policy, in the process of solving a public problem, may cause unforeseen undesirable effects to a par of the public. Such kind of impacts must be taken into account during the policy making process. Bibliography Anderson J. Public Policymaking: An Introduction. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010. Biggs S. and Helms L. The Practice of American Public Policymaking. New York: M.E Sharpe, 2007. McCormick J. American Foreign Policy and Process. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009. The international political, economic and security system that emerged at the end of World War II were a reflection of American values and interests. Discuss how the dynamics of the changes prompted by the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the former Soviet Union have affected America’s role in the world. There was need to deter the aggressive behavior in global politics to ensure peace between nations would be preserved. The U.S. proposed a balance-of-power system as the primary means by which peace among nations-states should be preserved. The U.S. was in a better position to assume much responsibility in maintaining the peace. The emergence of the two superpowers, that is, the U.S. and the Soviet Union who competed over military strength and geo-strategic influence so the U.S form the dominant North Atlantic Treaty Organization that prevailed throughout the Cold war period. This was a cautionary measure that promoted the balance-of-power strategy to ensure peace between nations. The Soviet domination over Eastern Europe signaled intentions to conquer the rest of the world by spreading its communist ideology, and used that interpretation as a justification for its containment policy on which it based most of its foreign policy towards the Soviet Union during the cold war. Only the U.S was in a position to keep the Soviet in check to ensure that it did not carry out these plans. The Soviet Union suppressed the worker’s revolts my military means. This was not readily accepted by the U.S and its allies. It signified the spread of the Soviet aggression. America took charge of leading the Western Europe and forming the European Union. It also strengthened NATO military force. The U.S. made special military arrangements with Iran, Japan and Taiwan and also engaged its superior military during the Vietnam and Korean wars. These were done in order to challenge the Soviet’s intention of expansion. The U.S also took the initiative of forcing the Soviet Union to dismantle its nuclear weapons installations in Cuba during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Due to its special security systems, the U.S. was given the responsibility of the principal protector of the then newly founded state of Israel. This protection came with the benefit of using the Israel as a defensive wall against the Soviet-supported nations in the Middle East. This was given a boost when Egypt turned against the Soviet military and expelled them. Ethiopia and Somalia too joined the U.S. camp and the America’s role as nations’ protector grew. Initially after WWII, the U.S. enjoyed the monopoly of possessing the nuclear weapons which it used to suppress the Soviet’s intention of expansion. The superpowers engaged each other in a regional and global competition for allies and with the aim of strengthening their alliance system and to diminish that of the enemy. This kind of competition was fought both by military means and the weapons of prestige. This made the U.S. project its technological advancement against the numbers of the Soviet group. The Soviet and its loyalists were quite a large group while the U.S. and its allies were a smaller number. The Soviet Union dissolved around 1991 and ceased to exist. This left the United States as the only existing superpower. The Soviets and Americans could overcome their ideological, political, and social differences, but this capability was betrayed by their very nature of being expansionist states whose respective spheres of interest eventually would expand to global dimensions. The Cold War can be said to have begun in 1917, with the emergence the Soviet’s revolutionary Bolshevik regime that devoted to spreading communism throughout the industrialized world. According Vladimir Lenin, the revolution’s leader, the gains were imperative. According to the Western governments, with U.S. on the lead, this revolution was an intended global movement. As a result measures were adopted to counter this movement. The Cold War was a decades-long struggle for global supremacy that pitted the capitalist United States against the communist Soviet Union. The superpowers were each formulating a way to secure their futures20. A mutual suspicion was bread by the threat that each side perceived from the other. It was this mutual suspicion which was enhanced by profound distrust and misunderstanding that eventually fueled the entire conflict. Initially the conflict of the cold war was driven more by political interests than military. Both sides squabbled with each other at the UN, sought closer relations with nations that were not committed to either side, and articulated their differing visions of a postwar world. By 1950, however, certain factors had made the Cold War an increasingly militarized struggle. First, the communist takeover in China; two, the pronouncement of the Truman Doctrine; three, the advent of a Soviet nuclear weapon; four, tensions over occupied Germany; five, the outbreak of the Korean War21. Lastly, the formulation of the Warsaw Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as rival alliances had all enhanced the Cold Wars military dimension. U.S. foreign policy reflected this transition when it adopted a position that sought to "contain" the Soviet Union from further expansion. The United States and the Soviet Union were the only two superpowers following the Second World War. The fact that, by the 1950s, each possessed nuclear weapons and the means of delivering such weapons on their enemies, added a dangerous aspect to the Cold War22. Public statements defined the beginning of the Cold War. In 1946 Stalin declared that international peace was impossible "under the present capitalist development of the world economy23." Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill delivered a dramatic speech in Fulton, Missouri, with Truman sitting on the platform. "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic," Churchill said, "an iron curtain has descended across the Continent." Britain and the United States, he declared, had to work together to counter the Soviet threat. The United States dominated global affairs in the years immediately after World War II. Victorious in that great struggle, its homeland undamaged from the ravages of war, the nation was confident of its mission at home and abroad24. U.S. leaders wanted to maintain the democratic structure they had defended at tremendous cost and to share the benefits of prosperity as widely as possible. For them, as for publisher Henry Luce of Time magazine, this was the "American Century.” Bibliography Duigan P. and Gann L. The Cold War: End and aftermath. New York: Issue 16 of Hover essays, Hoover Press, 1996. Klaus L. and Ann L. The Cold War Essential reading. New York: Wiley-Blackwel, 2001. Powaski R. The cold war the United States and the Soviet Union 1917-1991. Oxford University: Oxford University Press 1998. Read More