American Foreign Policy Doctrine - Essay Example

My American Foreign Policy Doctrine Introduction Similar to other countries, the United s of America has itsown constructed strategies of guarding self-interests, which it applies in achieving its goals within the international relations environment. This is what defines the American foreign policy. The idea of foreign policies is to interact with other states and as such, governments are faced with the challenge of making tough and sensible decisions since the nature of a policy has the capacity to largely impact on numerous other countries, and the international community as well. The United States of America will act, the case study for this study text. In it, the study text will formulate the US foreign policy in the 21st century, which is a fast changing world. The US foreign policy is perceived of as highly liberalist, and this will be elaborated on, in addition to how the modern world makes it hard for the US to dominate the world, and why it is too late for it to withdraw from the system of world interaction. Finally, the study text will in it incorporate failures and milestones in the US foreign policies and from the emerging trend forecast the future of the US foreign policies. In Stepak & Whitlark (45-66) view, the role of the United States in the foreign policy context is fetched from the ancient eras of world politics, and particularly the days of Woodrow Wilson; that is in the period after World War II and the Cold War. Most foreign policy activists attest to it that following the events after the fall of the Soviet Union, especially those oriented to human rights, the order of world governance evolved, and America’s role in manning the system emerged, and with it expanded its obligations to the international community. Concisely, the norms of non-intervention and state sovereignty weakened with the virility of liberal interventionism, which was being largely campaigned for by the United Nations. By definition, liberal internationalism is the doctrine of foreign policy, which supports that liberal states have the mandate of intervening in other sovereign nationalities in pursuance of liberal objectives (Pugh 2). The liberal objectives in this case can refer to any form of freedom and equality. In the light of this, the liberal internationalism policy mode of intervention may be either military or humanitarian aid. This definition that would, however fit best at the onset of the twentieth century since in the contemporary definition as forced by issues, liberal internationalism is varying. According to Ikenberry (74-80), these changes can be categorized under “Liberal International Order 3.0” which explains the variation in three phases. The first phase states that this order has become universal, while reducing its hierarchical format. In the case of the United States, it will be forced to cede its control and authority over more nationalities, and at the same time do away with several of its privileges and hegemonic rights. In short, it will have to reduce its role as a central player or mediator in world affairs since “liberal order can be endangered if there is a too much hierarchy. The second phase dictates that there is the need to devise means of legitimizing post-Westphalian sovereignty and authorities. This is made necessary by the emerging pattern of the dependence of security between states in that the security situation of one country affects that of others, and this translates to that diffusion, globalization, and advancement of lethal technology should be reversed to stop the erosion of Westphalian sovereignty. The final issue is about controlling the mode of democracy and international law so that it does not jeopardize accountability and popular rule. In short, it means that in the United States advocating for democracy should be limited to, levels so that they do not sacrifice constitutional democracy (Christie 23). The United States’ foreign policies are defined by its international placement in a big way, and are therefore affected by the emerging global changes about liberal internationalism. There are two dominant foreign policy challenges which the United States is facing today; the changing global status of traditional power which is endangering America’s assertion of international influence and abilities, and the revolution in the forms of risks and threats which in their advancement further weaken its capabilities with respect to traditional power (Kupchan 601-602). In seeking to overcome the emerging challenges, America has to invent means of curbing the challenges of the new world order being constructed by the new threats, being outdated in terms of practices, applying outdated means of engagement, and most importantly being forced to use the wrong kind of power in striving to maintain the global influence it possesses. These challenges, though being seen as emerging in the current century have a correlation with prehistoric America since the World Wars. The observations are that America will always play a certain role, whether publicly or silently. This trend has been brought forward to recent conflicts and/or global events such as the Iraqi and Somalia invasions, the transnational anti-terrorism interventions across the globe, and the tug between them with China owing to the latter’s currency volatility which is creating a sway of [former] America’s affiliate states towards the China East. These and other concealed factors prompt the rhetorical question as to what exactly the United States wants from its involvement with majority states of the world. It may be argued that it seeks to enforce diplomacy and neutralize unrests around the world owing to its superpower status, but this is not the overall accepted notion worldwide. The Obama administration, like all other principals before he has been claiming to promote democracy around the globe, but with a lot of bloodshed under the mask of “diplomacy”, questions are flying around regarding how genuine it is. The potential truth behind this is that America is seeking to restore, or rather, rebalance its world stances from the threats of being overtaken by fast emerging world economies such as the Middle East and Asian regions. Such events have attracted varying reactions the world over; liberals partially support the idea of the diplomatic America, but on the side, are against its way of pursuing it. Realist ideologies are in support of America’s way of diplomacy as they support the use of economic and military power as opposed to ethics and ideals. The above section gives two solid partitions regarding the potential inspirations of America’s foreign ventures into other states of the world; a proclamation by America, and a created possible [concealed] factor. In the first case, America will always claim to be advocating for peace, stability, and sustenance of the planet, but recent accusations have been levelled against it, and to make matters worse, there is strong sufficient evidence for this. The liberal factor in its foreign policies is evident in that troubled areas such as Somalia and Afghanistan receive both military and humanitarian assistance to oust resistance forces, not forgetting the much that the World Bank chips in. However, the greatest abusers of American Foreign policies are radicals since they believe in changing social structures by altering constituent value systems. This is because as the studies explain, America is “fearful” of any changes to its norms of perceiving the world. However, most of the critics of the American foreign systems attribute its failure to its “importing” of Cold War ideologies into the contemporary world. According to (Miller 12-13) the said Cold War ideologies are said to be unwilling in adopting new thoughts of viewing the world as an integral dynamic entity based on co-prosperity and peace seeking. Rather, they concentrate on creating battlefields with both ancient and new adversaries, and this further fuel the question that the United States must create a standoff with another sovereign state in proving to the world that is reigning? This largely comes in to support the notion of America is applying Cold War ideologies in the modern world. The evidence is all over around us. In the context of this foreign policy, politics, America has lost its direction and is applying rather undiplomatic strategies in manifesting its abilities. First, it has proven to the world that it does not adhere to the rules of conduct as set by international humanitarian bodies such as the UN in that in its invasion to Iraq, the required process was not adhered to. The process demands of sufficient prior proof of reason before military action is inflicted on a state, which the U.S. ignored, and an act that the world was divided over. It therefore failed in its modelling as an advocate of cohesion and negotiation. On a different level, it failed its mandate as a leader by trying to enforce a change on the Afghan people when they were not ready for it by trying to impose president Karzai on them. The qualities of a leader state that they should never force people into what they do not want (Mead, n.p.). Finally, its efforts of controlling China’s business circles after observing the business threat levels are also devoid of any acceptable foreign policy, but are a type of reset policies, which no one is willing to adhere to. America and the European Union are said to be the tightest and most crucial bilateral unions in the entire globe owing to the intensity of their united military and economic power in the world. This union makes them the strongest in the world and as such, play great roles in controlling global politics, trade, and international relations. From this, it is sufficient to conclude that America masquerades behind this bunker in protecting its interests of foreign policies abroad. These strategies have consequences. On the positive, the indispensable nature of the United States has made it possible to mobilize the globe into exercising effective actions. These can be seen in its military ousting invading Iraq troops from Kuwait, rescuing Afghanistan from Al Qaeda’s ideologies, resolving the Kosovo atrocities, and restoring the Haiti government from the military back to the people (Posen 2). One can therefore identify the EU-US ties and their effectiveness in neutralizing the world by protecting its member states from new world order threats. For instance, their union is under constant watch to contain Iran’s nuclear program, it monitors international crises such as the current Syria unrest and its intervention in the Sudan genocide. This union is powered further by military and aid collaboration with allies such as the CSDP and NATO forces. Apart from these, America is seen making individual advances aimed at promoting universal ties, especially with the events that proceeded 9/11 in which America’s abyss with particularly the Middle East widened. Obama’s recent visit to Asia is evident of just how much it needs to do if the pivot point that America once held is to be restored to its. There was much speculation regarding the aim of the visit, with countries such as Japan and China are being overly cautious with what Obama had to pursue in their region. All in all, although these emerging superpowers prove to be significant limitations to America’s sustenance of its superiority, this is seen as a measure of rebalancing its stand on foreign policies in the region (Brooks, Ikenberry & Wohlforth 6). Finally, it would be important to highlight America’s largest limiting factor in the achievement of its foreign policies abroad. This factor can be termed as America’s own invention, but on the side, it seemed necessary owing to its stand internationally. In its intervention to international affairs, the United States have been branded by some states as “meddling” with their issues, and this has sparked a new world threat. This is terrorism (Lindsay 767). This trend was ignited by Bin Laden who accused America of invading the holy land and invented jihad; a radical ideology responsible for atrocities such as 9/11. It is true that jihad emerged from its intervention to humanitarian crises, and this was necessary, but the problem is that jihad, not only targets the U.S. but also all nations supporting it. This has been blamed for the attacks experienced in Kenya, Israel, and Afghanistan, and as such, it can be concluded that in its affairs, America has endangered some nations in trying to protect itself and others. Conclusion Predicting the future of America’s reign is quite complex in that while puts all possible measures in place to maintain its power, the global trends are changing and with the change, so are threats and political ideologies. In my opinion, the future is not so promising for America’s reign in that with rising nations such as China and Japan, both of whom possess mighty economic abilities and advancing militaries, and with their bouquets attracting second and third world economies, America might end up being stripped of its power. This is furthered by the fact that these rising powers have minimal conflicts with the world as compared to America. However, the U.S. is not relenting on this, or allowing anyone to take its place; not without an adversary. It is possible that with the tensions created between the U.S. and the emerging superpowers, there will be a tug similar to the U.S. - Soviet Union Cold War battle for supremacy. This is because the patterns down history suggest that America’s way of creating awareness of its might and stand in the world is by creating rivals, engaging them, and after trampling them, they grasp the wand of world power until a new threat emerges; and the process is restarted. References Brooks, Stephen, Ikenberry, John & Wohlforth, William. “Lean Forward: In Defense of American Engagement” Foreign Affairs, 2013, 1-10. Christie, Kenneth. United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. Print. Ikenberry, John. “Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order” Perspectives on Politics, 2009. 7 (1), 71-87. Kupchan, Charles. “No One’s World” Jentleson, 2012. 601-602. Lindsay, James. “George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the Future of US Global Leadership” International Affairs, 765-779. 87 (4). 765-779. Mead, Walter. “The Failed Grand Strategy in the Middle East” The Wall Street Journal, 2013. Web. 5 May, 2014. Miller, Paul. “Five Pillars of American Grand Strategy, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy” Taylor & Francis Online, 2012. 54 (5). 7-44. Posen, Barry. “Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy” Foreign Affairs, 2013, 1-9. Pugh, Michael. Liberal Internationalism: The Interwar Movement for Peace in Britain. Palgrave macmillan, 2012. Print. Stepak, Amir & Whilark, Rachel. “The Battle over America’s Foreign Policy Doctrine” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 2012. 54 (5), 45-66. Read More