Comparison Of The United States Position In The World

The end of the nineteenth century marked a significant change in the American foreign policy. Prior to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, America had paid little attention to foreign affairs. When compared to some of the more powerful European countries, such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, the United States had a

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

There is not one American identity. There is not a single consistent plan for what American policy is, should, or will be. Sure, this political scientist might present a plan for a specific crisis, but there is always a politician in the wings with another plan to counter the first. Every politician’s opinion is different, just as every citizen’s is. Our experiences shape our identities, as does the information we are fed in school, by our families and friends, as well as the media. The view I have of the United States and its place in the world is quite different than most because I am a first generation American. Moreover, my family comes from Venezuela, where their international policy is starkly different than America’s. The United States of America’s international role has unquestionably shaped my opinions, outlook, and behavior.

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

How other countries view America’s position in the world varies not only based on America’s actions within the international arena, or foreign policy, but also how Americans view the actions of their leaders and policy makers. For both internal and external views, America’s “standing” revolves around two primary elements – how well the US government does what it says it is going to do and how well it stands up to threats against it. While these are not the only elements considered, America’s credibility and pride are viewed as key to how well it will respond to interactions both within and outside its borders. A country’s world view, or standing, can vary over time and be impacted by a number of things such as where a country is located,

In an effort to provide protection for our international interest our political leadership point of view is to show militaristic prowess. Mr. Bacevich has mentioned several examples regarding excessive spending within the Department of Defense (DOD) that dwarfs those of America’s closest allies. Also noted, Mr. Bacevich explained that the Navy maintains several large attack aircraft carriers; however, in the battle fleets of the world, there is no ship even comparable to a Nimitz-class carrier. The question is “why do we continue to move away from the general principle to maintain the minimum force required.” I think because we are living in a capitalist society the power of money is at the forefront. The DOD is an industrial military conglomerate.

America may be a relatively young nation, turning 240 years old this year, but in its short existence, it has had a powerful influence over world affairs, for better or worse. George Washington once said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” However, since his presidency, the United States’ position in the world has steered from a steely isolationist stance to one open and hungry for involvement in the matters of other countries. America craved land and power to bolster itself and utilized foreign policy to do so, shifting towards an imperialist position. However, this change in foreign policy resulted

Andrew J. Bacevich believes that our political system is simply trashed. In The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, he argues that the country’s founding principle, freedom has become confused with appetite. Turning America’s traditional quest for liberty and freedom into an obsession with consumption, by the U.S. public for the economic power of the elites, the never-ending search for more. He states that in order to accommodate this hunger, we are finding pandering politicians creating an informal domain of supply, maintaining it through continuous endless wars. The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Bacevich conservative principles and his anger rage at the Bush Administration’s reckless militancy. Dedicating and referring to the memory of his son, Army First Lieutenant Andrew Bacevich, Jr., whom unimpeachable credentials and activism against the war did not stop his son from being deployed to Iraq 2007. Bacevich identifies three major crises he believes is plaguing the United States: military inefficacy, greed, and political incompetence.

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?

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,

“America was conducting business as usual, but others were joining the game.” (Zakaria, 221). All this time we thought we were on top, we were actually slowly becoming less and less of leader and more a bystander as the rest of the world is slowly rising around us. Zakaria shows in that quote that as America has been continuing business like always, and because of this we have failed to realize our standing with the world around us. In the book The Post-American World, Zakaria shows us the challenges that America faces today. I believe the United States is most affected by our ignorance, competition, and worldly participation.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.

The USA exercises its foreign policy through financial aid. For example, scarcity relief in North Korea provides not only humanitarian aid but also a base for the development of democratic ideals and bodies.