American Foreign Policy: Realpolitiks Vs. Human Rights Essay

Throughout the course of history, the United States has remained consistent with its national interest by taking many different actions in foreign policy. There have been both immediate and long term results of these actions. Foreign policy is the United States policy that defines how we deal with other countries economically and politically. It is made by congress, the president, and the people. Some of the motivations for United States foreign policy are national security, economics, and idealism. The United States entry into World War I in 1917 and the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1964 and the both had great impact on the United States.

The United States foreign policy is an interaction between the United States and foreign nations. Foreign policy sets standards on how different organizations, corporations, and individual citizens should interact with one another. Some Americans believe the United States should remain withdrawn from the affairs of foreign countries, but other Americans believe the United States should involve itself in the affairs of foreign countries. In 1796, George Washington included these words in his farewell address, “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” These words from George Washington shaped the foreign policy of the United States for over a century.

Did American Foreign Policy during the 70’s and 80’s create the terrorism we fight today?

Once the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, it was clear that the U.S. was a major force in international affairs. Since that time, the U.S. has had some successes and some failures in its international affairs.

The United States has always had an erratic view towards foreign policy. At its conception, it leaned isolationist for about a century leading up to the First World War before opening up to the global stage. In the interwar period, the United States retreated somewhat back into isolation but continued to support Europe and Latin America. After World War 2, America was left to assume the role as the global hegemonic power, both willingly and unwillingly. Unique circumstances such as the destruction of most developed economies allowed the United States to exploit the situation to create a world order with several differences from that of its predecessor, Great Britain. This new world order allowed the U.S. to focus on two specific thoughts on their foreign policy, Wilsonianism and Jeffersonianism, as it saw fit.

The people of Chile had a very high poverty rate and the standard of living was very low, due to the private corporations from foreign companies. The majority of the profit from Chile’s largest export, copper, was going to a United States company, Anaconda. Anaconda purchased mining rights in Chile, and discovered huge tracks of copper within. The mine in Chile began producing two thirds of the company’s copper, and created a large dependence on the United States from Chile. The United States believed that both Tomic and Allende would nationalize the copper production if elected (“The Electoral Stakes, the Pot and the Jockey With Money”). The United States also believed that while both would nationalize copper production, Tomic would keep stable relations with the United States while Allende would not. With that in mind the United States chose to continue support for

Some critics believe that the U.S. should have no part in protecting these rights. The critics would like to see Americas interests protected first. If the U.S. involves herself, she must come to the aid of all because “no one else has the reach and resources to do the job”(Sands 3). At the same time Sands says that the U.S. “may not impose its will”(2) on other countries and erase centuries of hate and feuding, but it must do what it can to help the feuding ethnic groups to reconcile their differences. Experts on foreign affairs from both parties say “the United States must be engaged in hot spots around the world”(Sands 2). We have the power and the capability to help many of the nations that are suffering and being oppressed, therefore we must use it to help.

     The United States is a growing global power and presence. Most other countries are not. We are often called upon to engage in conflict situations like preventing violations of human rights and genocide. Intervening only where our national interest is concerned would only bring about negative reactions, which could undermine our effectiveness and especially our international credibility. Therefore, the U.S. should seek to intervene in and prevent violations of human rights not only where we have other interests but in most other

During summer of 1954 France and Vietnam signed the Geneva Peace Accord, which declared the temporary division of Vietnam in two parts: the North Vietnam (under the authority of Ho Chi Minh and communist forces) and the South Vietnam (under the authority of Diem) to the 17th parallel. The new treaty stipulated that the country would hold national elections in order to be reunified the country in 1956. The Secretary of US John Foster Dulles did not support the Geneva Peace Accord, but however he agreed to respect it. He did not want to recognize officially the Chinese Government, and effectively grant power to the communist part.

Though Chile had been an authoritarian regime under US influence for years, it collapsed in the 1960s, when social movements began to emerge prompting many to question existing social and political policies. Socialist Salvador Allende won the presidency under the platform that more would be given to the citizens of Chile, as opposed to foreign investors. The US had previously been involved in funding political campaigns, but relations turned sour in 1970 when Chile became a socialist state. Many of the reforms under the newly elected president began to loosen the American control over the Chilean economy. To prevent further weakening of American influence in Chile, the US supported and aided a military coup in 1973 that removed the democratically

There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has recently avoided interfering militarily in Syria or providing the rebels with direct support, but admitted the presence of the Syrian opposition.

Washington and Monroe believed the United States should not become involved in European affairs, but is that possible to follow today? In my opinion, I believe that European affairs can be avoided for the most part, but with major wars, it can’t be avoided. When there is a major battle in Europe, there is a danger to the United States. If we don’t work to stop the European threat before it gets to our country, we can be facing major devastation, destruction, and death. One not-so-recent example of this is World War II. If the United States hadn’t joined the Second World War, then Germany would’ve eventually invaded our country and would’ve been harder to stop than it already was. Because of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, December 7th 1941, we joined on the side of the British against the Japanese, Germans, and Italians, or the Axis powers. With minor terrorist attacks and other minor European crimes, we can stay out of their business and for the most part remain neutral in the conflicts on European nations. We need to protect ourselves and our allies if we wish to keep our freedoms that other countries don’t have. It’s up to our president to decide what we need to interfere with, and what we need to stay out of.

Human rights have been a concern for many decades. There is so much beautiful and grotesque history around it. Ever since the rise of Martin Luther King Jr. human rights in America have been palatable. But years after his death human rights in America are becoming endangered. The threat maybe our 45th president Donald J. Trump.

Without the presence of a compelling interest to proceed with international treaties, it remains understandable that the US would opt out of institutions such as the Rome Statute. As a cornerstone of the legislation, no country would be able to alter the framework or provide reservations and conditions prompting the US to immediately rescind all discussions. The transnational approach to policy making can account for the historical nature of the US’s decision to implement international policies in order to set the domestic agenda in motion and/or aide in the dissemination of a policy through justifying a broad jurisdiction (Kyl, Jon). Treaties have been widely respected by the US, if and when they are allowed to dominate the process of ratification

Was the weakness of the American foreign policy the cause to the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979?