American Foreign Policy Essay

American foreign policy relates to what is done in foreign countries by the United States of America. The foreign policies include controlling of the governments of foreign countries or setting some rules in those countries. The foreign policy of America has always been changing all through the US existence. The changes have stemmed from the dynamics of exogenous and substantial influences of watershed up to the international system and also the effects and changes of endogenous inside the government of the United States. Outstanding assertions like the policies of Monroe, intercontinental encounters such as the Second World War, War of the Spanish and Americans, and the cold war and also conflicts that were termed as local including the Korean War and the Vietnam War considerably shaped the American foreign policy (Kissinger et al., 1969).

The evolution of U.S. Foreign policy following the Civil War is continually evolving. During the Civil War years, America had an economy that was based on agriculture. Farmers were growing cotton, tobacco and sugarcane. Slaves from Africa worked on these enormous plantations. . At the time, America was in an election year with Lincoln as the candidate of the Republican Party claiming he was going to abolish slavery. When Lincoln won the election he did just that, immediately there after 7 states declared their independence from the US, they were then known as Confederate States. After a few years 4 more states

American foreign policy is a virtual jumble of ideologies, among which stands the concept of isolationism, an avoidance of global relations. From 1913 to 1937, the United States struggled with the question of to be or not to be, and presidents ranged from complete global disengagement to war declarations. However, although they all wrestled with the idea isolationism, not all presidents acted equally. Woodrow Wilson’s domestic success and idealistic foreign failure is a testament to the inequality, whilst Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in contrast, gradually emerged from the theory of isolationism as a worldwide political butterfly. The two chiefs in the center, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, presided over an isolated, stagnant period

entered a relatively short period of imperialism, and expanded its interests into the Pacific Ocean and East Asia when it occupied the Philippines and commandeered Hawaii in 1898 (Cox & Stokes, 2012, p. 33). As the U.S. continued to grow in strength and influence within the global community, it was evident that its isolationist based foreign policy was no longer practical. This realization was made further apparent by the consequences of the industrial revolution, wherein the U.S. was no longer completely isolated between European powers. As a result, the U.S. pursued an approach to spread democracy within the global community including, but not limited to, the various states, international organizations, and international law – this concept is known as the U.S.’ open-minded, or liberal, internationalist agenda (p. 23). Whereas isolationists resist the idea of the U.S. becoming actively involved in international relations, internationalists support that notion, as well as the U.S.’ participation in various global issues and organizations, such as the United Nations (Cox & Stokes, 2012, p. 162). Furthermore, the characteristic and ideology of internationalism is fundamentally the historical nature of the U.S.’ foreign

The objective of ‘the U.S. foreign policy’ course is to develop personal ability for applying IR theories to the U.S. foreign policy. Then, students will be able to understand the direction as well as the grounds of the U.S. foreign policy. To achieve this objective, I will discuss major the theoretical issues through the brief history of the U.S. foreign policy until the Cold War. After that, I will examine the challenges which the U.S. confronts.

The history of the United States is short but complex. A young nation, the United States has already become a major power in the world theatre. Risen from humble colony, to independent nation, and finally a world leader, in little more than three hundred years. Many believe that the young nations isolation and independence have shaped it polices toward other nations. The United States following years of isolationist policy entered the world stage in force under the leadership of two powerful figures in United States history President Roosevelt and President Wilson. These Presidents held strong views of the relationship that the United States should have in the world’s political theatre. Wilson was the political idealist, he believed that the

The end of the cold war obligated the United States once again to face the old problems which weren’t based on containment of communism. Like in the aftermath of World War 2 when America’s influence in the world was expanded, the end of the Cold War did much of the same. The problem’s the Soviet Union once had of controlling and influencing smaller countries under its thumb, now were inherited by the last super power standing, which at the time was the United States. Debate began to rise on what path America should take next on foreign policy, should the U.S commit itself to small problems or hold back its fire until a greater threat emerged?

From Theodore Roosevelt’s acquisition of the Panama Canal, presidential power over foreign matters has grown substantially, loosening its grip on the United States’ long standing policy of isolationism; officially abandoning it in the 1940s, when Frederick D. Roosevelt and the United States involved themselves in the infamous World War II. Today, the president of the United States works closely with the National Security Council (NSC), an agency of the Executive Office of the President, to council and advises him on all international, domestic and militaristic matters (American Gov’t, 420). Although the Constitution does not explicitly touch on all areas of foreign policy, it is up to Congress and the federal government to set Constitutional precedents. Over the years, the presidents that have been in office must consult the NSC and all other executive office agencies in order to be well informed on matters and in the process make rational decisions as the biggest world power in the world. In order to fully understand, whether or not an increase in presidential powers is justified when it comes to foreign affairs, it is imperative to assess the works of different presidents since the World War II era onward and the effects it has had on its people, the world, and the country. An increase in presidential power is not justified when it comes to foreign affairs and policy because although they are the representation of the United States when travelling abroad or taking a stance

To begin America’s foreign policy has changed quite a lot. The first policy we had was the Monroe Doctrine which was established in 1823. The policy provided precedent and support for U.S. expansion on the American continent. This meant Europe could not interfere in Western Hemisphere affairs and could not be involved in the expansion. Soon after that we were changing our policies again which lead us to Wilson’s 14 points. Basically after we had entered WW1 we wanted to establish peace so we drew up specific recommendations for a comprehensive peace settlement. As you can see already we are becoming more involved and our policies are allowing us to become a whole and make peace. Then once again we were getting involved and our policies had to changed again we created the United Nations in 1945. It consisted of the following

Polarization in political views, while not bad in and of itself, can hinder the actions of the nation as the two sides staunchly bicker over who’s right instead of working together toward an actionable solution. Lack of unified national strategy hamstrings government agencies, as goals are either not clear or a changed with each incoming administration. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) has received several project mandates in the past ten years, only to find them canceled as political renown required a different arbitrary goal. When an agency’s goals are revised, much of the costs already spent are wasted and unrecoverable. Other policies at stake are about doing anything at all. Questions over how, if at all, to engage emerging extra-governmental threats (e.g. Islamic State), environmental threats (climate

Watching the extraordinary rise of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and subsequent capture of the Republican Party nomination in 2016, both observers and the official chattering classes have pondered what this means for the future foreign policy of the United States. Trump’s strident opposition to free trade, disdain for NATO and the US-Japan alliance, and willingness to ban all Muslims from entering the US do represent a stark break from 64 years of Republican national security orthodoxy. With every Republican nominee from Dwight Eisenhower to Mitt Romney, the Republican Party gave strong support to the large international role the United States played on the world stage and the web of alliances and treaties that underscored it. While there have been Republican voices in the post-Cold War era who have challenged this internationalist foundation, none of them were able to seize the glittering tiara of the presidential nomination. The Trump victory in the primaries overturns decades of GOP positions on foreign policies. Yet is this the triumph of a single candidate or a fundamental shift in opinion within the party grassroots? And if this is a new direction, how much of this change can be attributed to the Iraq War and its disastrous consequences? While Donald Trump’s foreign policy statements may come off as spontaneous and incoherent at times, what about their longevity? Unless Donald Trump wins a sizable victory in November, it’s likely that it’s a short lived

When asked today who controls the majority of the foreign policy of the United States, an American would probably answer, “The Executive Branch.” However, the legislative branch plays a role in foreign affairs as well. When President Obama traveled to Cuba, twenty members of congress accompanied him. In fact there once was a time, a small window in post World War II America, where the executive branch would not dare to make a decision without consulting the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations. Instead, President Truman committed himself to working with members of his own party as well as Republicans to foster a bipartisan, decisive congress. World War II had created a perfect storm for bipartisanship to flourish: Europe was in tatters,

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

This essay will critically review the understanding that G. W. Bush’s administration had of ‘unilateralism’, and it will thereafter argue that this concept was seemingly useful only in the short term, while proving to be unfavourable and hindering in advancing US national interests in the long term.

The Atlantic has recently published an article written by Jeffrey Goldberg titled “The Obama Doctrine”. In this article Obama is clear that he has taken a stance of retrenchment when dealing with the constant problems in the Middle East. In the article Obama outlined two tactics that he has been actively using, throughout his presidency, to shift American resources and focus away from the Middle East. In this paper I will address how two policies have successfully pulled America away from the Middle East and how a key assumption by Obama will ultimately save the United States years of worry.