Foreign Policy : The Transition Of Democracy

Moreover, the personal characteristics and orientations of heads of government are likely to have more impact on a government’s foreign policy under some circumstances than under others (Hermann 13). With this Hermann categorized the personality traits of leaders into two orientations. On one hand, there are the aggressive leaders who are leaders with high levels of nationalism, a strong belief in their own ability to control events, a strong need for power, low levels of conceptual complexity, and high levels of distrust for others. Such leaders tend to develop an independent orientation to foreign affairs. On the other hand Hermann finds the conciliatory leader to be high in need for affiliation, conceptual complexity, trusting of others, low in nationalism and likely to exhibit little belief in their own ability to control the events in which they are involved (Hermann: 8).

Between 1918 and 1953 there was a major change regarding the foreign policy of the United States. At the end of the First World War, we practiced a foreign policy that was first established by George Washington in his Farewell Address back in 1796, which set a precedent of isolationism that was adopted until the beginning of World War II. Following Washington 's Neutrality Proclamation, the US did not engage in many global affairs such as the French Revolution and remained neutral through all foreign affairs. At the end of World War I, we continued to practice isolationism by not engaging in foreign affairs and limiting military spending believing that by pursuing this policy we could maintain peace and avoid war. Unfortunately, this

The Monroe Doctrine was an assertion of President James Monroe regarding U.S. foreign policy in 1823. In the Doctrine, the President denounced European powers’ any further attempt to colonize and exploit Latin American countries, while promising not to interfere any existing European colonies in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was one of the greatest turning points in American foreign policy as it marked the beginning of America’s rapid development as a world power. Over the past two hundred years of history, the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine had been altered multiple times in order to suit America’s changing foreign policy. For example, in the 1840s, President James Polk used the Monroe Doctrine as an excuse to annex

During the1890s, the United States showed little interest in foreign affairs. The U.S. relied on previous foreign policies which resulted in inconsistent international trade in the years leading up to the twentieth century. However, following the rise of the industrial revolution in the United States American business began to recognize the vast potential of the international market place. The U.S. sought out to expand its territory globally to increase trade and protect its assets more effectively. The United States, at this point in the late 1890s, also began to listen to Alfred Thayer Mahan, an admiral and naval strategist. Mahan had previously called for a strengthening of the U.S. navy and an expansion of U.S. markets globally. Mahan also had great influence over his friend and current assistant secretary of the navy Teddy Roosevelt. In 1898 the U.S. was able to exploit a huge mistake made by the Spanish empire in Havana Harbor. The American ship U.S.S. Maine mysteriously exploded on February 15, 1898, killing 266 American sailors. The American public was outraged and they called for war to overthrow the “Spanish Murders” in Cuba. At this time, Spain was an imperial power with land possessions in the Caribbean as well as the pacific. They controlled Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and the Philippines and Guam in the pacific. American politicians, including Secretary of State John Hay and President William McKinley, now began discussing the idea on going to war

America believed that it was isolated from the rest of the world, and its foreign policy reflected these ideas and beliefs. The United States was on its way to becoming a world power and advancing its own interest in the world, especially in the North and South America. Isolationism caused the United States to avoid being involved in other countries politics and for the U.S. to remain neutral in foreign policy

The term ‘engagement’ was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan administration’s policy of ‘constructive engagement’ towards South Africa. ‘Engagement’ refers to a foreign-policy strategy which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives . From Evan Resnick he defining engagement as “the attempt to influence the political behaviour of a target though a comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue areas as diplomatic,economic,military and also culture”.

Since the United States’ conception, controlling interests in other countries has been of utmost importance. For decades, the United States’ foreign policy has been centered around protecting its assets abroad, regardless of the manner in which it is done, and in many cases, a blind eye has been turned toward the consequences of involvement in foreign countries. Over the course of the 1900s, the United States has committed numerous human rights violations in Latin American countries in order to advance their political, economic, and cultural agenda.

Knowledge accumulation and investigation fuel the world-changing choices of policymakers consistently. The pioneers of nations, their prompting staff, military pioneers, and government organizations all depend on auspicious, exact reports keeping in mind the end goal to choose the destiny of a military unit, a nation's military, or a nation itself. These policymakers need worldwide, national, and nearby occasions clarified in a way that inspects all ramifications and conceivable results of a situation. It is the Intelligence Community's business to gather, examines, and reports these occasions to the policymakers. So as to serve the nation most successfully, an insight examination report must Webb 2 be client engaged, tending to the client's

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.

Durning 1913 and 1916 Woodrow Wilsons domestic and foreign policies weren 't both equally successful but both were successful. AlthoughWilson had primarily been elected to reform national politics and initiate new progressive policies in Washington, he spent the majority of his time as President dealing with foreign policy rather than domestic. Wilson 's predecessors, including McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft, had viewed the United States as an emerging power that needed to extend its influence throughout the world in order to serve national interests. This imperialist policy was justified by the commonly held belief that it was America 's duty as a Christian republic to spread democracy throughout the world. These three Presidents significantly expanded America 's influence abroad with the annexation of colonies throughout the world, such as the Philippines and Cuba.

To begin, the United States should not play a role in enforcing democracy in other countries. Our country currently has a dysfunctional government, and should be more concerned with improving ideals on the home front before imposing said ideals on other nations. In the United States, we suffer from an incredibly large amount of debt on the national level that we have no way of paying off, poverty is abundant, and there are numerous examples of corruption in even our national government. Meanwhile, we pour endless resources, money, and American lives, into countries where there has been conflict for hundreds of years, and the people there neither want nor need our so-called assistance. Our interest should not be in inflicting American ideals

The United States has been at the forefront of international affairs for many years and has gotten to a point where the democratic nation has established a strong political influence, a political presence that sends shockwaves throughout the international arena whenever nations display political indifferences; some of which may involve the United States. If tension were to ever arise between feuding nations, a proficient and skilled leader must take ahold of the matter and find all possible solutions to diffuse the situation in order to protect the public interests of it’s citizens. As a representative of the United States and their international policies, a successful secretary of state must be able to project themselves with an

To conclude, it is rare both in American and World History to find presidencies and administrations that can go down in history as periods of great innovation on foreign policy. International relations are very complex and volatile and thus difficult to adjust and manage. Therefore, the only way for policymakers and politicians to acquire the necessary intuition in order to deal with the complex nature of international politics, is via the detailed comprehension of their predecessors foreign policy failures and achievement. Thus, the next American government in order to achieve its main goals must learn for Obama’s mistakes while at the same time to continue his successful political

In today’s world, there are a wide range of factors that impact all human lives. Each nation has its own strategy to deal with challenges and cope with the impacts to secure the maximum benefit for the nation and for the well-being of its citizens. Thus, it is important for states to apply the right instrument to position themselves at both internal and external levels, particularly in the international sphere. Foreign policy is a crucial tool for nations in dealing with other actors on the international stage; in order to secure their national interest, as well as to guide the appropriate direction for interacting with other actors in the world. Further, the bureaucracy is deemed as the prominent notion for constituting foreign policy. Generally, some narratives indicate that foreign policy making resulted from the output of the theory of bureaucratic politics which addresses the role of bureaucracies for facilitating the making of foreign policy. Thus, foreign policy could be derived from various actors of bureaucratic politics that compete among actors to secure their interests in specific agendas and make a significant impact on foreign policy.

Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and