Foreign Policy Decision Making Process

Prior to World War I, the United States generally chose to follow Washington’s farewell address and stay out of “foreign entanglements”. The United States foreign policy from 1918 to 1953 shifted from isolationism or independent internationalism to a more involved internationalism and containment of communism due to various international events, economic conditions, and US public opinion.

Throughout the mid to late twentieth century the United States was extremely concerned with their foreign policy due to mishaps that surfaced as a result of lazy administration when dealing with communism. As an example, one mishap was how the Truman Administration dealt with China after the KMT surfaced following WWII. Instead of immediately defending the People’s Republic of China, the United States stayed mostly secluded and independent and let China slip into the favor of the KMT. This was an example of the United States’ being too moderate in their foreign policy. However, on the other hand, there were examples where the United States was too aggressive in their foreign policy. An example of this was how the US chose to dealt with North

The U.S. foreign policy has always been linked to the domestic policy since the U.S. never feared of expanding its national interests over the national boarders. Isolation for the U.S. usually implied slow economic growth and the large number of destructive conflicts within, while impudent foreign policy always guaranteed an abrupt economic growth for the U.S. economy. After the U.S. intervened in the WWI and the WWII, the U.S. economy witnessed a tremendous economic growth, nearly elimination of the unemployment, rapid urbanization and overall growth of the standards of living across the country. Decisive foreign policy has always been providing the U.S. economy with the sustainable and rapid economic growth, unlike the policy aimed at isolation of the U.S.

From the 1920s to the beginning of the World War II, as the country which played a dominant role in Europe, Germany was the one that took advantage of other small Europeans country by its strong power. Hitler and his Nazi party demonstrated their ambition to make Germany a stronger country. Under the pressure of the German power, other European countries were afraid to justify equality and agreements among all the European countries.

In reference to the foreign policy, in the mid-20th century after World War II, United States was in Cold War with Soviet Union. The United States referred as the Capitalist West and the Soviet referred as the Communist East. The two power nations clashed in many ways. Thus, Soviet accused America’s atomic bomb as leverage to control the Soviet and the world. These differences made each nation distrust each other. President Truman then, feared that the Soviet will continue its expansion, had the Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947. It gave the President increased power, where to conduct foreign policy. The Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency was created, both agencies collaborated on the monitoring

Russia has built a strong, but stagnating economy on several natural resources to include the refinery and export of natural gas and oil. According to the Jim Picht (2014) exportation of natural gas and oil to Eastern Europe account for 70 percent of Russia’s exports and 53 percent of the government’s revenue. Along with exporting oil to Eastern Europe, Russia also exports too many countries to include China and Belarus. Europe fueled majority by Russian supplied natural gas and oil, the dependency of Europe’s need for this natural resource is the reason Russia’s economy is so strong. In 2014, when Russia decided to invade the neighboring country of Ukraine has led Europe to begin searching for other suppliers of their natural resources. If Europe finds other countries to supply the natural resources

There has been tons of contentions and conflicts in the second largest country in europe and while the news presents us all these ideas about what going there, the truth, as it always is, is much more complex. The recent turmoil in the Ukraine has brought up a lot of issues remembered in the cold war. Russia Annexing the crimean peninsula from the Ukraine scaring western powers, specifically the United States, into the old policy of Soviet containment and using any means to put negatives towards the “eastern block” preventing the spread of its influence. Although the United States and it NATO/European Union current policy’s towards the eastern block have attempted to contain this strong autocratic style of

Foreign Policies are influenced and created by two branches, executive and legislative. The U.S. Constitution put this delegation of power into place. Foreign Policy determines how the U.S. will network with other countries and has been a large factor in our history since implemented. The process of the policy is not always the simplest; it has caused tensions and angst between Congress and the President through the years. A discrepancy between the two branches was and is not uncommon, yet the relationship between the two is indefinite. Each division has responsibilities and its own appointed power over the making of policies and bills. There are checks and balances to the process, where the President can veto a proposal by legislation

The US’s global influence and power place a broad range of intervention tools at its disposal. Even though tensions between Russia and Ukraine are lower than they were a couple of years ago, the impact of the US is visible. First, in the form of economic and political sanctions against Russia (Daiss, 2016). These penalties have proved costly to Russia and in some way have deterred further Russian aggression.

The foreign policy of the United States of America is the process in which it cooperates with foreign nations and sets guidelines of communication for the rest of the world. The foreign policy of the United States is the strategy by which the United States communicates with foreign countries. The U.S. has a powerful influence in this world. The global reach of the United States is backed by a $14.3 trillion dollar economy, roughly a quarter of worldwide GDP, and a protection spending plan of $711 billion, which represents around half of worldwide military spending. The U.S. Secretary of State is the foreign minister and is the authority accused of state-to-state strategy, despite the fact that the president has ultimate power over foreign

This involves new ideas and in democracy commentators, politicians, writers, creative types, engineers and philosophers attempt to leave their mark. Belief mechanisms have done so profusely, on grounds of claiming ‘knowing the unknown.’ Ashdown’s methodology cleverly side-foots celestial dialogue and in a trice unleashes what most commentators have dismissed; the near future role of Putin’s Russia - Ashdown states: "We have no choice but to play hardball with Moscow over Ukraine. But offering Putin a partnership on defeating the Sunni jihad which threatens us both would add huge weight to our ability to succeed and avoid the mistake of pushing Russia into a corner from which there is no escape." A lot of compromising is in the offering, on par with Greece’s infinite fiscal bail-out terms; realistically a reformed United Nation's mandate may suffice, purely due to its remarkable silence at a time UN intervention would be heeded and respected. We’re subconsciously, consciously seeking answers and it comes in the most unorthodox streams – for proof of this I’m reading Paddy Ashdown’s ‘Independent’ articles; he’s mentioned Russia quite a bit. I don’t deduce this as being a case of tautology, but as a vital element to what we must do, I suspect Ashdown will reiterate its importance again and I’ll read it again and I’ll think we’re no nearer to resolving the threat… ‘It’s

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.

The crisis in Ukraine and Crimea’s recent accession to Russia are events that clearly highlight the underlying sources of conflict in global politics. While Russia sees its actions in Crimea as a “reunification” and the respect for the right of self-determination, the West views it as a threat to European security and a violation of territorial integrity. Crimea has been a debatable topic from the time it came under the control of the Russian Empire in 1783 during the reign of Catherine the Great. The justification then was similar to the reasoning being used by Vladimir Putin today. Catherine declared that she was protecting ethnic Russians in the region from the Ottoman Empire, much as Putin is claiming to protect Russians from Ukrainian

For example, nearly 80% of all gas exports from Russia to Europe cross Ukraine. On numerous occasions, Russia has shut off energy supplies to Europe, which often pass by way of Ukraine. For the EU, the conflict showed that Ukraine is perhaps more strate-gically located than was thought before. The EU is also interested in stabilising the wider region which is plagued by many problems: the breakaway republic of Transnistria, the tension between Georgia and Russia, but also more di-rectly relevant issues such as organised crime, illegal migration and the environment.

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.