New Zealand Foreign Policy

At the outbreak of the Second World War, Australia as a nation was still very closely tied to the British. Therefore when war was finally declared after a period of appeasement, Australia’s Prime Minister Robert Menzies of the United Australia Party, made his famous Melancholy Duty speech, committing Australia to the war effort. However as the war waged on, and when Winston Churchill’s promised support was most needed, they weren’t there. It was America that showed up to help save our proud nation, leading to disillusionment in Britain’s supposed benevolent power and a turn to the USA for help.

The US-Australian alliance requires some explanation. At its basis, it pertains to the ANZUS treaty signed between Australia, New Zealand, and the

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.

As was laid out in the previous section, the United-States always had a ‘hegemonic presumption’, the conception that Latin America was inferior, a supposition that gave the right to Washington to intervene in the region’s political and economic affairs (LeoGrande, 2007:384). This second chapter will explore how the U.S. intervened in Latin America, more specifically after the World War II. Indeed, the U.S. benefitted greatly from the aftermath of the war. A subsection will be dedicated to the Pink Tide in Latin America, with a focus on the U.S. foreign policy under President GW Bush and President Obama. The overthrown Presidents of Honduras and Paraguay were part of this movement and their outset signals a reversal in the region.

World War 2 was a substantial war that determined Australia’s relationship between the two allies Britain and America. With war progressing it imposed Australia’s foreign political dilemma of being the pivot between our neighbouring partners; Britain as our dominion, and America as our guarantor. Suffering from the ‘tyranny of distance,’ and being the dominion of Britain, Australia’s dependency was lacking immensely. Due to Australia having no ambassadors and not having a constitution of authority (under the Federation) it enabled the foreign policy to be neglected. Edmund Barton, Australia’s first Prime Minister set patterns for decades of Australian foreign policy in 1901 when he drew encouragement during the election campaign by proclaiming:

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

12th March 1915: The day hadn’t started out differently to any other day. I had just been out to milk the cows and feed the calves. As I was walking back to the farmhouse for breakfast, I met Dad, who had come back from the markets. He stopped the truck beside me and wouldn’t look me straight in the eye. That was when I knew there was something wrong. He wordlessly passed a brown envelope out of the truck window. “GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND” was emblazoned in bold red print across the front. My heart lurched, constricting my throat. As I opened it, my worst fear was confirmed. In small lettering it announced, “Mr Michael Jones, we need you to protect our country.”

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

Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the war against terrorism has become “the” major foreign policy objective. Violence is a hallmark of terrorism; terrorist groups participate in gruesome acts to create widespread revulsion and fear. According to Sandler, the true target of terrorism is a wider public, who will then pressure the government to give in to the demands of the terrorists.

As Kelly Anderson’s Foreign Policy Analyst, the following memo will address three areas of the United States’ foreign policy. The U.S. has gone through may transition when it comes to its foreign policy. The United States has been an isolationist, neutralist, and internationalist country from the year it was founded to now. The executive branch and the president apply their power to influence and change the nation’s foreign policy. There are specific departments within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) created to assist the president in his or her process. Political context and historical events have occurred to prove why intervening with another country’s issues does not benefit the national interest and why isolationism is a better system for this country. Hopefully, the memo will accomplish informing what the foreign policy is, was, and should be.

The entry of Japan into World War was accompanied by a shifting relationship between England and Australia. Up until the fall of Singapore on the 15th of February 1942, England enjoyed the unconditional support of Australia in fighting the war in Europe. The fall of Singapore and Britain’s subsequent surrender in the region brought the war closer than ever to Australia. This new perspective on the war resulted in a reconsideration of Australia’s position in the commonwealth and forged a new relationship with America. In order to understand these changing perspectives, it is essential to look at Australia’s relationship with England pre-World War 2, why Australia looked to America, how America responded to Australia’s appeal for support and subsequent changes to Australia’s foreign policy.

On 2 April 1982, the British political system was rocked by news of an extraordinary event eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic. A long-standing and thorny dispute with Argentina over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands – a tiny relic of empire proximate to the South American mainland – had erupted with a sudden and unprovoked invasion of British territory by Argentine forces. Britain’s Conservative government faced the greatest crisis in foreign affairs for a generation (Freedman, 1988). Behind this audacious Argentine manoeuvre laid the assumption that the British Government – struggling with union strife, plunging

After U.S. had an isolationist foreign policy for a long time, U.S. has shifted its power from isolationism to the internationalism. In international relations, united states is the dominate force, which has the biggest military arsenal in the world. However, the position on how the United States should deal with terror is not only relay on the preeminent power that American security has. It also depends on the policymaker. According to James N. Rosenau, the foreign policy can be influenced by five potential resources(Michael Cox &Doug Stokes p6). There are external government, social environments, government structure, bureaucratic roles and personalities of individuals. The directions in U.S. foreign policy moves differently because

In the early stages of the political United States, between 1789 and 1825, foreign policy was controversial with the popular demand of the American people. The foreign policy was primarily acts of neutrality and refusal to be involved with European affairs that came out of a defensive reaction to perceived threats from Europe. Two of these policies in include Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality and the Monroe Doctrine. Both of these policies expressed the neutrality of the United States in European affairs and helped the new country to develop without the constant threat of war.