Contemporary American Foreign Policy - Case Study Example

CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: Running head: Name: Course: College: Tutor: Date: ABSTRACT: A closer look at the United States foreign policy contemporarily leaves a lot that has been desired the world over, whereas some policies have been criticised in spirit and letter. In study, we focus at hoe the US has in the past few years conducted its business and its general behavior towards other nations of the world. These ranges from issues directly affecting it or in some cases, its allies across the world. There are some countries which the US has struggled to protect, some claiming vested interests by the US while to some, it has not been business as usual. A good example in this case is the struggle in the Middle East, whereby the United States has been widely criticized for taking sides, leaning towards the Jewish, hence frustrating peace efforts. We seek to compare how the US has in recent times conducted itself towards global issues like world treaties and covenants’, focusing at whether it has been able to follow these agreements fully or it has backed down at some stage. Such agreements in our discussion include the International criminal court bindings (the Rome statute), and the Kyoto protocol, about global warming. We aim to see if this is a case of double standards or mere protection of national interests especially the US’s defense and security policies as discussed below. Consequently, this study include areas where the US has excelled so much in international public eyes, the aspect of funding global and regional organs which are involved in pushing different imperative agendas around the world. These include oraganisations like the UN, its own homemade programs like the African Growth and Opportunity Act, (AGOA), and its impact on the counties such aid and grants. The latter is a program which the US has made available to poor countries in Africa to give them trade incentives and preferences, both in imports and exports, to foster an improved trade environment. As pertains this study, we look at contemporary US foreign policy as two fold; its ability to make or take decisions unilaterally as a nation, to protect its much desired interests or its ability to co-ordinate with other countries in coming up with policies which are all aimed at combating one agenda, multilateralism. Consequences of these two ways of policy making are to be reviewed in this study, not only criticising but looking at the reaction of the world as a whole as concerns this decisions. INTRODUCTION: The word contemporary means that which is in existence, albeit at the time. Therefore when we talk about contemporary American foreign policy, we imply the leadership guidelines with which the US uses in dealing with other nations across the world. According to A Gyngell & M Wesley, in Making Australian foreign policy, p. 18, foreign policy refers to all actions or efforts relating to other nations or countries at large1. These can be in relation to different fields of specialization, including governance, business relationships and in such disciplines as global challenges like terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking to mention but a few. Recent studies at the American policies concerning the rest of the world has observed a wider scope at how the US is viewed by the rest of the world, either as a country with the strongest foreign policy base or to some as one struggling to link up to the expected standards of world relations. It is indeed true that a country’s image among others is determined by its outward clothing it puts on, and this is none other than its principles upon which it uses in foreign co-relations. Therefore in this study, we focus on the basic rules with which the US has been using in both the recent and would be coming near future. For instance, we will look at these processes of policy making as a process which is two-fold. This implies that there are policies which the US has gone alone at it, while for some it has enlisted help from its allies especially in the larger Europe and the world over. Such nations include the United Kingdom, Israel, France and Germany, not to mention but a few. There has been intense criticism towards the US and how it has been conducting its business across the world, creating heavy criticism from the Arab world, but inviting praise and backing from its staunch supports from Europe. Consequently, we aim to look at the importance of studying this foreign policy of the US, and what the US can so far learn from its past policy programs, so as to establish if there is anything positive from this and indeed if the US leads as an example as a superpower. Some have however argued that as the US strives to top the world in matters of ‘democracy’, then it should actually make sure that other countries also enjoy the same ‘democracy’, in all spheres. As we discuss these, we pay attention to other fields of world business (world trade policies and the US), international security and terrorism, Africa and the question of poverty, the H.I.V And AIDS pandemic, alongside many global challenges such as global warming. In all these discussions, we also turn at what the US has done on its own (unilateralism and what it has done successfully as a result of multilateralism). DISCUSSION: UNILATERALISM ON DIFFERENT ASPECTS: The term unilateralism in this case means a situation by which the US has made policies internally and sought to implement them by themselves. This implies that whatever the US as a country has in recent times seen as fit for itself, it has gone at it individually, DM Malone & YF Khong in unilateralism and US foreign policy, p.2.2 Here we begin an analysis of the US behavior on a range of topics, laying more emphasis on the times between the mid nineties up to the early stages of this millennium. Among the issues covered under this subtopic are; a) The rule of law aspects b) Development in trade and world economy. c) International peace, stability and security. The rule of law aspects: While looking at elements of the rule of law, we discuss whether the US has helped to make or break these issues as a whole. These include areas whereby the US has contributed towards shaping the international laws that we have today. Although some scholars argue that the US has only been instrumental in contributing towards rules which it perceives as helpful to it, this is not the opinion shared by many around the world especially in the nineties. For instance, during the Clinton’s era, when international public law was just treated equally as their own homeland laws, or with just in equal measure with their supreme laws. It is also true that the US gave its full support to laws which were in support of world security. This included international treaties and obligations mainly tied around the United Nations Organisation and other security organs like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, (NATO). In as much as the US has engaged in molding or creation of international treaties and covenants, for example the Universal declaration on human rights and the nuclear non-proliferation chatter, it has also emerged that the United States is not a strong follower to the latter of these bindings. On several occasions has the US either withdrawn from them wholly or in part, and too has it escaped to take up to full obligation of the bindings of these treaties As if not enough, there has been criticism to the effect that instead of backing with vigor such world organizations and treaties, the United States has instead opted out of commitments like those from the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto protocol and many other covenants. When the US unilaterally backed down from the Sea convention law way back in 1982, many were rather surprised by the action, accusing the US of practicing double standards. To make matters worse, we have witnessed the same happen when the US gain opted out of the ICC, having supported the United Nations in various ways. On the inside, the US can pride itself as having conquered the world by contributing in setting very strict laws for all other countries in the UN, which also happen to be members of the Rome statute, only for it to back down on them. There are those who have alluded these to selfishness, owing to the fact that international challenges like war crimes and crimes against humanity are punishable under the Rome statute, but on the other end leaving the US to go scot-free in its bid to stem out international terrorism in Afghanistan and the present day Iraq. As result of these retracting from important agreements which it had earlier on backed, the Bush’s administration came under enormous criticism for such acts, including in the year of 20043. Trade development and world economy: Donating or collapsing economically? As we continue to wallow in dilemma over the activities of the United States in relation to the rule of law around the world, one does not help but wonder at the way the US has continued to fund international organizations like the United Nation’s World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to Management & Budget, in Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, pp.872-873, the US has partnered with members of the IMF and the World Bank, like the International Development Association (IDA), in order to offer loans and grants to both the institutions for mutual benefit.4 Truly, it falls under the mandate of America’s foreign policy and the American government, to make a decision to be funding such orgainisations out of their coffers. Another of such support is its commitment towards elimination of poverty in poor parts of the world for example Africa. Through institutions such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act, (AGOA), which was incepted by the US congress way back in 2000, during Bush’s era, the United States has continued to provide good trade preferences to poor African countries among them Malawi, Botswana, Kenya, and others. Under this pact, the US’s president was given power by the congress to determine which amount is to be provided to these countries on annual basis. This has seen the rise and drop in amount of this fund, depending on individual presidents. President Obama has come under heavy criticism lately African leaders for deciding to slice downwards this fund, supposedly in trying to fight the inward biting problem of global economic meltdown. When former president Clinton observed that what Africa needs is aid and not just aid but aid that aids trade, many African developing countries sighed with relief. However, President Obama’s perceived demotion of AGOA back at home has been interpreted to mean a total lack of commitment5. Among the first steps which president Obama took upon resuming office was to begin a rapid program of cutting Americas spending, which has had a prolonged impact on Wall Street. It can therefore be said that as the US foreign policy tries to make up to its earlier commitments in different funding programs, there is increased negativity among its citizenry over the growing amount of debt which its government is accumulating. Hence the recent efforts by President Obama to try to reduce, through his government’s policies, the amount which America donates to other countries. International peace and security: Under international peace efforts and world security, the US has centered on major challenges like terrorism, drug trafficking and many others. The United Nations, which forms the backbone of America’s strategies and interests across the world, has been in an on and off relationship with the US. Although as mentioned earlier that it funds much of its budget, the security council of the UN, has been swayed this way and that way in order to let in the interests of the US. For example, international community was treated to surprise when against the wishes of the UN, the US decide to invade Iraq, alleging that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and that it was in the best interest of the whole world, especially to achieve a stable middle East, to bring down Saddam’s regime. According to E McWhinney, in The September 11 terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq, p.57,6 the US, under the pretext of getting rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) in Iraq, it invaded Saddam Hussein’s regime.7  As observed by Mcwhinney, this was a preplanned idea by few of America’s interest based foreign policy makers to increase America’s power. Instead of the US forging its agenda through the UN, it opted to go it alone, only involving its allies like Britain in invading Iraq. One would have thought that the best way would have been giving the UN’s Security Council enough teeth to enable it push the world agenda with haste, but the US action at that point amounted to weakening the very global body. Discussion of US foreign policy does not escape the September 11th terrorist act that surely sharpened US’s aggressiveness throughout the world. Just like all countries denounce international terrorism, America adequately seized this opportunity to play the leading role in combating terrorism. During the era of President Bush, the international community specifically in the Arab world blamed its woes on poor policies from Washington. The situation in Afghanistan, where insurgency has been on the rise, despite sending thousands of troops in Kabul, Kandahar, and other Afghanistan capitals has not been stabilized either. The search for the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden has not yet been so successful. In fact, it has elicited many sympathizers across the world including countries like Iran, Syria, terrorist groups in Lebanon and other Al-Qaeda operatives like Al-Shaabab in the horn of Africa and Somalia. Multilateralism: An example of how this includes when the US, in the interest of the whole world and backed by the UN, did unite with the NATO forces in their bid to oust Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in the early nineties, during the operation Desert Storm. In an analysis of the concept of togetherness, the operation Desert Storm, which pulled thousands of soldiers, led by the US soldiers, they fought tirelessly for the liberation of Kuwait. This is discussed by M. Gitlin, in Operation Desert Storm, p.78.8 There is another case of partial multilateralism. In mid nineteen ninety nine, when the US, together with NATO teamed up to bombard Yugoslavia, it dawned on the US that other superpowers with powers to veto were not going to actually allow the US together with NATO to use force against Kosovo. IH Daalder & ME O'Hanlon notes it was very difficult to get Russia to veto any use of force in order to liberate Kuwait, in Winning ugly: NATO's war to save Kosovo, p.369. but in order to achieve their objective, the United States decided to begin this mission without the blessings from China and Russia. In this case we may be correct in referring to this as partial multilateralism. Conclusion: As a superpower and an opinion shaper of the world, the US has struggled over the years to develop foreign policies which the world will interpret them to mean good intentions for the rest of the world. This has not been an easy task but a mountain climb that has seen these relations go down the bitter way, with accusations from major powers like Russia and china of the US’s behavior of self-centeredness. In the Middle East, matters are not good either as Palestine has on several occasions accused the US of indirectly supporting the Jews, in its bid to become an independent state. This has further undermined to date the ongoing peace talks in the Middle East, though countries like Egypt continue to support the process. Therefore it is imperative to note that America has continued to play a major role in manipulating other nations foreign policies as well, for example Britain, which has continued to be blamed over its involvement in siding the with US during the invasion of Iraq. Bibliography: Gyngell A &  Wesley M, Making Australian foreign policy, 2nd Edn. Cambridge University Press, 2007 p.18. 2 DM. Malone & YF Khong, Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: International Perspectives Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 2003, p.2. 3 Noyes JE. Heinonline, the United States, the law of the Sea convention, and freedom of navigation, 2005-2006, retrieved on 10th Dec, 2010, at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/sujtnlr29&div=5&id=&page= 4Office of Management and Budget (U S.): Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, pp.872-873, 5 Burns R. U.S. Africa Policy under Barack Obama: A New Direction? Catholic Parliamentary Liaison Office, Cape Town, 2010. Retrieved at http://mafrome.org/US_African_Foreign_Policy.pdf 6 Mcwhinney, E. September 11 terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq in contemporary international law: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004 pp.56-57. 7 Gitlin, M. Operation Desert Storm: Kuwait is free again, ABDO Publishing Company, 2009, p.78 8 Daalder, IH & O’Hanlon, ME Winning ugly: NATO's war to save Kosovo, Brookings Institution Press, 2000, p.36. Read More