President Obama's Diplomatic Approach Towards Foreign Policy Essay

Throughout the course of history, the United States has remained consistent with its national interest by taking many different actions in foreign policy. There have been both immediate and long term results of these actions. Foreign policy is the United States policy that defines how we deal with other countries economically and politically. It is made by congress, the president, and the people. Some of the motivations for United States foreign policy are national security, economics, and idealism. The United States entry into World War I in 1917 and the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1964 and the both had great impact on the United States.

First and most generally, the Administration will have to engage other nations, bilaterally and multilaterally, and regain that vague but critical quality of American

As we move steadfast into the twenty-first century we are confronted with more complex and compromising issues affecting the intricately connected global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend countless hours configuring ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking within and across national borders. Instead of submitting ourselves to the tyranny of chance, which cruelly deals out futures blighted with catastrophes that can remain vivid in our memories, President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an attempt to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism

The President of The United States in supposed to be the epitome of strength and leadership, but it has shrank considerably with the increasing amount of attacks under Obama’s two terms. No matter what we do, terrorists seem to keep cause considerable trepidation throughout all, and terrorist pose a gargantuan threat to other parts of the world. Barack Obama was going to eliminate these threats, but after two terms, the country is still having terrorists creating panic in the country, this was inevitable. Barack Obama should have taken more offensive and defensive measures against terrorists because we have had eight terrorist attacks since his presidency, we have had suicide bombers traipsing through our boundaries, and we have not had any progress through his judgement.

Many leading political analysts have agreed that the Trump presidency has marked a change in the American public's opinion on United States involvement in the rest of the world, the first shift post-Cold War. They are in agreement that Trump’s rhetoric has been reminiscent of the “American First” movement that supported an anti-interventionist policy pre-World War 2, but they are decidedly not in agreement about where the United States should go from here. Some believe that the United States should focus on rebuilding the State Department to encourage diplomacy, others believe that “America First” is the right approach, some believe that the US should continue support of trade agreement and involvement

Cold War politics went beyond direct relations with the Soviet Union in their impact on the course of American history. With China, Nixon sought a similar mutual agreement to peaceful resolution as that set down with the Soviet Union. In addition, the administration saw the benefit of scientific cooperation and bilateral trade as potential areas for expansion of relations and mutual benefit. This statement is largely on behalf of military peace between powerful nations, but it goes beyond that to include an acknowledgment of economic opportunity from increased contact. This is an introduction to the potential for global trade to be an important part of foreign affairs in the

In order to understand the policies adopted in the War on Terror, we must first look to the origins of the conflict as well as the practices involved. Whilst the term itself was initially introduced during the Reagan administration, it was given renewed vigour under George Bush following the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon on 9/11. The consequences of these attacks saw the Bush administration undertake a new policy against terrorism which included: defeating terrorists and abolishing their organisations, denying sponsorship and support to terrorists and defending US citizen’s interests at home and abroad (Whitehouse Archives, 2003). In this way, the War on Terror can be considered more than just an armed conflict

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.

In 2001, President George W. Bush altered United States foreign policy to acknowledge the potential threat of terrorism by taking any action deemed necessary to ensure United States security. President Bush’s public rhetoric and publications, colloquially known as the Bush Doctrine, deviated American foreign policy to a more neoconservative approach embracing a proactive policy contingent upon American military power.

Engagement seeks to heighten shared interests through building diplomatic communications to achieve desired outcomes. Over the past three decades, contacts between the United States (U.S.) and Iranian diplomats are tactical not strategic. Often, negotiations involve undoing an injustice in which Iran bares significant responsibility, such as hostage holding. Still, history shows negotiated agreements between Iran and the United States are possible and the security interests of the two countries coincide. Iran has influence in oil markets, which gives the country an important tool with which to influence the behavior of consuming nations such as the U.S.

President Obama has had a great deal of accomplishment with his foreign policies. One of his most famous actions, and successful

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.

When discussing the various factors that influenced American foreign policy from the 1970s onwards, it is impossible to ignore the role of the president. As commander-in-chief, the president ultimately has the final say in determining how the United States interacts with other countries and non-state actors abroad. As a rule, a desire to maintain the political and economic strength of the US has informed the foreign policy decisions of every president from the period of détente to the present day. Throughout both the Cold War and the War on Terror, the promotion of democracy and capitalism has been central to achieving this goal, yet the actions of Jimmy Carter and his successor Ronald Reagan illustrate the extent to which the methods employed by individual presidents have varied (Hook and Spanier, 2016: xv-xvii). For Carter, American strength could be ensured through brokering peaceful diplomatic settlements, as exemplified by the Camp David Accords of 1978 and the second series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Nevertheless, while this

201211540 Title: The Diplomatic Aspects during Cold War Statement of the Problem: The historical event of Cold War was the time for the aspects of diplomacy and its role for the world order. I.Introduction Cold war is historical event to be described as the conflict between communist states and democratic states, as the Soviet Union led the Communist Bloc and United States led the “Free World” nations. It was after the Second World War when the Cold War began, the United States and Soviet Union, particularly Russia, former partners against Axis powers, started to distrusted each other and made efforts to spread their political and ideological ideologies in many states in the world. Each side used diplomacy as strategies or tactics for themselves and for their ideological plans, ranging from accusations

In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, the world has had a sobering look at world terrorism. Led mainly by the United States, and supported by the United Nations, a new war on terrorism has begun. Overwhelming support worldwide has surfaced as President Bush has vowed to punish those who decide to commit terrorist acts, as well as those who harbor or condone these activities. So far Bush has followed through on his promise with the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban regime. Others are also displaying their understanding of the situation and are treading a great deal lighter in search of their causes to avoid being labeled as terrorists, as shown by the latest disarmament and return to the negotiating table by the Irish Republican Army. As the world watches, President Bush is now faced with enormous pressure to gain control of the Arab-Israeli conflict.