International Relations Between The United States And Other Nations

National interests are usually the main consideration for the U.S. foreign policy, which can divide into two different parts. First, to protect and prevent American people from any kind of attack, which is the most important and commonly agreed unanimously. Second, helping and maintaining the operation of the U.S. government. To ensure that the interests of national development are not being compromised, Untied States have more aggressively policy to protect its national interests. Some people believe the “the U.S. will use unrivaled military power to further the global counterterrorism movement and democracy as the core goal of foreign policy. Furthermore, the U.S. hopes that all countries and societies can choose the most advantageous political and economic system to themselves independently, to help those countries which have been used as safe haven by terrorism organizations to get rid of the chaos caused by war and poverty.”

Since 1899, America has maintained an open door policy with China. Throughout the years, relations between the United States and China have changed with several effects on both countries caused by the open door policy.

Over time the United States has had many different presidents, each serving one or two terms in office and that same tradition still continues today. Once elected the president spends the majority of his time in the White House with his family while serving the people of his country, and when his presidency is over, he goes back to living his normal life. While in office presidents deal with more than their share of problems and conflicts of interest whether they are domestic or international. To alleviate these situations, the president with the help of his administration comes up with solutions for these problems whether they are deals, treaties, or presidential doctrines. Presidents create presidential doctrines because of the conflicts of interest that arise, relationships that exist among each other, and provide the solution to the conflict.

All things considered, the contradictions over outside arrangements between the US and different nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside differences over staging, and disconnectedness of power and tact have partitioned the nation of America itself with the neighbouring nations and have broken associations between social orders for at any rate the previous two decades if not more. Internationalists, solely marked liberal internationalists, have as far back as anyone can remember accepted that remote arrangement is to a great extent a matter of goodwill, understanding, and determined participation with different states to accomplish normal and aggressive points of multilateral choice making, financial globalization, non-expansion,

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

“To those people in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required,” (Kennedy 2), John F. Kennedy told an inspired crowd and an ambitious nation during his inaugural address on January 20, 1961. The origins for his plan to establish a program to assist developing countries originated about 4 months earlier during an early morning speech at the University of Michigan, where, at 2 a.m., he challenged the students to “contribute part of [there] life to this country”(Kennedy 1). His speech received a thunderous response and within weeks a petition in support of the idea had been gathered with over a thousand

Today, the United States (U.S.) is one of the largest world powers on the globe. A world power can be defined as a “country that has significant influence in international affairs.” However, the U.S. has not always been one of the world powers. Between the years 1876 and 1919, the United States slowly evolved into the country we all know and love today due to the reasons of interest in foreign affairs, the Panama Canal, the nation’s geography, and industry.

Charles Beard once described the US’s security policy as one built by perpetual war to ensure perpetual peace. The United States is regularly involved in confrontations between nations. Even though quelling disagreements is the primary purpose of getting mixed up in disputes between countries, at times the US strategically benefits through its peace initiatives. Moreover, such interventions promote global stability and make sure that the world is a peaceful place. The US should be involved in conflicts between countries because it provides weaker nations with a line of defense, prevents civilian casualties, promotes beneficial ideologies, expands the US’s influence, and protects the US from potential confrontations in the future.

The President of the United States has the most scrutinized and profiled job in the world. He is under constant media and public scrutiny as well as international scrutiny. His job responsibilities are numerous from setting the budget of the U.S. government to being Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. While his domestic responsibilities are certainly important in his job description it can be argued that his foreign policy responsibilities are even more important. The United States sets an awesome precedent in international relations and can sometimes be the difference between growth and regression or war and peace. While the country itself sets the standard, the President and his administration are the face of that standard. Not all foreign policy is going to go the United States way however as there have been times that presidents have been duped so to speak or just handled the situation poorly over all the examples being Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis and more recently President Obama and Vladimir Putin in Russia over the issue in the Ukraine.

The United States have been involved in many countries throughout history. Most recently the U.S. have been involved with the Middle East and terrorist groups within those countries. Throughout our involvement in other countries the U.S. has experienced blowback. The term blowback has played a significant role on our foreign policy. “Blowback is defined as the unintended consequences of policies that were kept from the American people” (Johnson, 2000, p. 8). This paper will discuss the effects of blowback in United States foreign policy and why it matters, the consequences of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and how the Bush administration contributed to the rise of ISIS.

The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

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 international relations theory attempts to provide a conceptual model upon which are analyzed international relations , its implications and how you study and understand the participation of stakeholders and their influence in the international system . Each theory helps to understand the birth of International Relations as an independent disciplinary area within political science , and its deep changes and reflections until today. Each is reductive and essentialist to different degrees, respectively based on different sets of assumptions.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism