Entanglement of Americas Foreign Policy as John Quincy Adams Predicted - Coursework Example

Entanglement of America’s Foreign Policy as John Quincy Adams Predicted Introduction President John Quincy Adams extrapolated the phenomenon of European foreign policy to predict the path that the young nation would have to avoid in order to remain focused on the democratic nation that the US was busy building. Various themes of motivation of American foreign policy define the current conglomerate of factors affecting American interests and image abroad. As the president observed, the central inspiration behind the great interest Americans have abroad originates from goodwill and belief that a better world can come out of how nations assist each other1. Being at the center of a rapidly changing world, factors affecting the standard of freedom, which forms the central theme of the American democratic dream, continued to emerge from all corners of the world. In discharging duties of a well-wisher for collective success of her people and her allies, America has had to come to terms with entanglement of factors that John Quincy Adams had foreseen (Raz 165). Wars of interest perhaps have landed America in more trouble in foreign policy than any other country with similar ambitions abroad today. Confusion of legal obstacles and temptation of avariance and frequent circumvention of procedure with regard to internal tensions in achieving foreign interests complicate legality of certain decisions taken today than ever before. Envy of other nation’s achievements and unmet ambitions also loom in the way America deals with a number of international competitors in socioeconomic and political interests at an all-time high scale. As observed by the Sixth President, these complications at the international arena still stare in the path of America’s success ambitions and use of force could only make it irreversible and unbearable. Background During the founding stages, the US had an impressive commitment to provide guarantee to all Americans that democratic culture and values would remain strongly embedded in the institutional memory of the nation. Much supports the impressive success in the upholding of democratic values and principles. A rich religious foundation of the nation that inspired foreign relations established by American missionaries and well-wishers laid down primary goodwill for nearly every other cooperation abroad (Cox and Stokes 33). Slavery, ethnicity and racial wars that left a blemish on the history of the nation open wounds of inequality within a system that upholds democracy. Overcoming such blemish through exceptionalism where other nations failed poised the US to make dramatic success in dealing with liberal space (Cashman and Robinson 22). Gained experience in handling federal internationalism defined isolationism values in the 18th century is a massive asset in dealing with similar matters at the global arena, perhaps forming the reason of remarkable success in the murky waters of foreign relations that have witnessed two World Wars. To sum up the “goodwill” that the Americans wished in all foreign affairs, isolationism to deal with problems without interference and assistance to the needy was in effect the overall dream, which eventually ended, confirming the fears of the President as contained in the quotation as shown below. Isolationism in 1700s-1800s and Its Eventual Dilution in 1900s As indicated by the President’s comment in this context, North Americas’ deliberate move to have complete isolation policy and independence from Europe persisted in the theme of the foreign relations until the turn of the century. The famous Monroe Doctrine and a few wars with European nations, such as the 1790s Quasi-War with the French, conflict with Britain in 1812 and 1898 Spanish-American War illustrate localized attention of foreign policy that ended with the century. This phenomenon has an impact in the definition of the American intentions of involvement of other nations, which appeared to possess hunger for misery of the locals in the territories that they annexed. The quotation of the President captures precisely what the European nations had to deal with, as observed in European struggles to attain cohesion that was the focus of the emerging nation. Involvement in the annexation of Hawaii and surge of interests to the East may have originated from frequent European disturbance broke the previous foreign policy (Cox and Stokes 37). In view of the magnitude of the damage that practice of foreign relations by the European nations had on the US, the arguments opposing annexation and forceful occupation of Eastern territories could not hold the government back. The specificity of the venture into the murky waters of aggressive foreign policy could have sent a message to the seasoned explorers and occupiers from Europe that it would not remain the same story forever. Having practiced isolationism throughout 1800s, the cost benefit analysis proved unbearable within the comparison framework where European threat to the rise of America as a global leader indicated serious inadequacy. Davis (12) has similar views, as mentioned in the President’s remarks, that the table of confusion and entanglement in interests, wars and envy was set and ready. This conclusion suffices on the observation that international rivalry with world super powers would in less than five decades of America’s encounters witness two World Wars and the cold War. Championing International Liberalism and Entanglement in Late 1900s to Date The US’s move into international space by the turn of the 19th century was welcomed by a series of strives, anarchy and a complete opposite of her liberal and democratic values (Beth 12). Hierarchism and powerful regimes posed as a mockery of the democratic politics and displeasure dragged the nation to not only adjudicate in the World Wars but also combat open enemies and assist allies. This move propelled the nation into the super power that it is today, which could have proved a success in the next project. The next phase of the foreign involvement included the spread of the goodwill values and assisting in the demolition of the imperialist values of powerful anarchical global political organization and replacement with liberal democracy. This obviously, came at a cost since imposition of values perceived the best by the Americans would face resistance as witnessed in the Cold War. Exceptionalism at the international level would imply that while spreading campaigns of freedom from barbaric civilization, resistance would not pose a major threat since democracy would seemingly appease everyone as it to the Americans (Sen 12). The sudden rise to the peak of global politics and power did not draw a line on how militarism and might would affect campaigns of liberal democracy and freedoms. Once on top of the world, the temptation of penetrating global politics under liberal intentions followed by suddenly hijacking the opportunity to use of force and dictate world politics became a reality towards late 1900s as feared by John Quincy Adams. The US found its interests mix expand increasingly as the rivalry with the opposing Cold War blocs resulted in confusion and increased use of force to impose what the country felt was good for the world. The fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1900s eliminated the apparent power bipolarity and paved way for another level of America’s presence as a unipolar influence. In the ensuing and uncontested self-declared role of global politics, the US could not overcome entanglement due to the overwhelmingly huge scope of interests as socioeconomic and political pressure from internal space spilt to consider overseas policies. Capitalist theme of the American liberal democracy campaigns clashed with any organization established under communist ideologies, which created the standoff in foreign policy. With a growing industrial economy over the 1900s, the economic wing of American interests abroad complicated the blend of matters that the nation had to take care of internationally. Shifting from the earlier forceful imperialist approach adopted by the European powers to amass wealth and success overseas, democratic values had the foreign policy cut out for any administration (Cox and Stokes 39). Major moves recorded in historic policies by American authorities including the Truman Doctrine and the Marshal plan illustrate the socioeconomic shift of the American foreign policy, blending with the military emergence to illustrate the complexity of the encounters at the international arena (Kaufman 28). Militarization of foreign policy under the importance of the American economy to the global relations was inevitable as witnessed in Korea and Vietnam, which defies the objectives of the initial democratic campaign (Cox and Stokes 80). Ambitions of amassing as much opportunities to sustain the discovered hunger for success and sustain the newly attained status put the nation into more mess than initially anticipated. Towards 2000s, the US was fighting all sorts of dissent including defiant authoritarian regimes and terrorism using diplomatic offensive as well as military combat leading to a confused foreign policy under democratic definition (Hulsman and Lieven 65). The changing course of the consequences that the US had to meet, with regard to the confusion of interests as observed by John Quincy Adams, the mixture of interests that the nation protects in the foreign relations level presents more than the original “goodwill” since the murky waters have attracted too many than possibly bearable. Emergence of terrorism as a threat to America’s influence in the Middle East backed by religious extremism form one of the strongest indications of a foiled image presentation. Foreign policy and democracy campaigns in the Middle East crossed the line when terrorist attacks occurred in the US. Military pursuit of the terrorist group into Afghanistan and the Gulf War touched on national security that had experienced a breach to reach the level of internal attacks. The perception held about America as a dictatorial force disguised as a democratic campaigner in the Middle East cross the lines of American interests in natural resources of the region, including oil (Beth 22). Nuclear proliferation among risky hands in the region poses the worst headache for America, since the retaliatory thinking still looms in the region. With the emergence of traditional enemies such as North Korea and Iran adjudicated by the Russian authorities poses as reemergence of the US-Soviet tensions that prematurely culminated at the end of the Cold War. Foreign policy under these circumstances define the US as a dictator, who despite commanding undoubted recognition and acknowledgment also receives equal measure of suspicion of overthrow. Despite the initial triumphant introduction into global foreign policy by amassing instant respect, the US struggles to retrace itself as a nation worth liberal democratic tag devoid of bulldozing connotations. The rise of China and Russia as military powerhouses and their little provoking marionettes in Iran and North Korea proves to be the next pending assignment of entanglement, whose outcomes depend on the foreign policy strategy adopted (Buss and Mitchelle 105). Works Cited Beth, Simmons,. Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print Buss, M. Helen., & Mitchelle, Joseph. Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World History, vol. 2: The Modern Era to the Present. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print Cashman, Greg. & Robinson, C. Leonard., An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq, London, UK: Rowan and Littlefied Publishers, 2007. Print Cox, Michael., & Stokes, Doug. US foreign policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print Davis, John. Presidential policies and the road to the second Iraq war: From Forty One to Forty Three. London, UK: Ashgate Publishing LTD, 2006. Print Hulsman, C. John., & Lieven, Anatol., “Neo-Conservatives, Liberal Hawks, and the War on Terror: Lessons from the Cold War,” World Policy Journal, 23.3(2006):64-74 Kaufman, P. Joyce. A Concise History of US Foreign Policy. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Print Raz, Joseph. The morality of freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Print Sen, Amartya. “Democracy as a Universal Value,” Journal of Democracy, 10(1999):3-17 Read More