Pros And Cons Of Primacy

‘For Marshall Planners, it (economic growth) was...the key to social harmony, to the survival of private-enterprise capitalism, and to the preservation of political democracy’ , additionally, by setting up European economies in the image of America’s capitalist, free-market economy, it became far more difficult for Communist beliefs in the state controlled market to prevail in the struggle for power that consumed many European countries. An analysis of America’s foreign policy by Nikolai Novikov, Soviet Ambassador, shows that the Soviet Union also saw the Marshall Plan as an attempt to impose America’s political views on the peoples of Europe ‘obvious indications of the US effort to establish world dominance’ . Novikov suggests that America is trying to become the leading world power ‘The foreign policy of the United States... is characterised in the post-war period by a striving for world supremacy’ , and emphasises the role of the American military to impose the policies of the White House on the world, ‘indications of the US effort to establish world dominance are also to be found in the increase in military potential in peacetime’ . This view is expressed by Soviet deputy foreign minister Andrei Vyshinsky where he states to the UN General Assembly that the Marshall Plan is an American attempt to ‘impose its will on other independent states’ . There was a strong feeling in the Soviet Union

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

America may be a relatively young nation, turning 240 years old this year, but in its short existence, it has had a powerful influence over world affairs, for better or worse. George Washington once said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” However, since his presidency, the United States’ position in the world has steered from a steely isolationist stance to one open and hungry for involvement in the matters of other countries. America craved land and power to bolster itself and utilized foreign policy to do so, shifting towards an imperialist position. However, this change in foreign policy resulted

The current overwhelming dominance of the unprecedented modern American empire in the realm of world politics generally agreed upon by experts and scholars around the world. There is little to refute the argument that there is any state that comes close to the strength of the Americans in a vast number of areas, most notably economically and militarily. Present debate among experts in the field of international relations revolves around whether the Americans can maintain their primacy for upcoming generations. Robert Dujarric and William Odom, both experienced and respected scholars of international relations, declare in their 2004 work, “America’s Inadvertent Empire,” that America is in a solid position to keep a tight hold on its place at the top. Vividly explaining America’s path to dominance while emphasizing the current state of domination, the authors effectively present the abilities of the empire while also illustrating the potential threats that could bring it down.

The 20th century brought with it a plethora of technological advancements that acted as a catalyst for an important and lasting shift in the United State’s perception of its role in the world. Technological advancement in travel and communication changed the American people’s views of the world, therefore changing the direction of American foreign policy. This shift in foreign policy would eventually lead the United States into the grips of two horrific wars on the European continent. However, these wars would provide the necessary environment for the country to establish itself as the leader of the international system – a title it would desperately need tin order to attempt to create a new, less conflict-ridden global order. Though World

When the debate is brought up about primacy and cooperative engagement, it is first important to understand both are ideas or constructs that are not found anywhere written down as the United States foreign policy. Both of these thoughts pose positive and of course negative results. Primacy will be the first idea to be discussed.

The article, “Race to the Future. How America’s missile defense initiative blossomed into an international coalition,” was featured in The American Legion, a center-right publication, in August of 2015. The author of the piece is Alan Dowd. Dowd is a frequent author and head of the Center for America’s Purpose, a center-right organization. Regarding the critical eye, the article is accurate with a few pieces of misleading information. Throughout the article numerous solutions are presented and a discussion of different points of view is presented. Although the article is in favor of a national missile defense system, the author remains objective throughout the piece, and a large quantity of background information is provided, which helps the reader come to their own conclusions about a national missile defense.

The debate over America power is one that is extremely relevant today, especially following this month’s revelation by the International Monetary Fund that China has just overtaken the US as the world’s biggest economy (Fray 2014). The two articles, ‘Is the United States in decline—again?’ (Cox 2007, pp. 643–653) and ‘The empire writes back’ (Williams 2007, pp. 945-950), take very different views on the state of America’s influence in the world today. Realists believe that the world is an anarchical environment, and states – who are the only actors – are all self-interested and driven by power. Cox takes this realist approach in his article, arguing that power is necessary for security and highlighting absolute power that includes factors such as military, economic and cultural indicators. In contrast, M. J. Williams’ response to Cox takes a very different view to the debate over American decline by dismissing realism as an inadequate and irrelevant policy-making device and instead concentrating on the importance of an interdependent international system, emphasising the value of relative power among states. Although the debate over American decline is polarising, it is clear that America is still the most dominant force in today’s world and hasn’t lost any significant amount of power. Broadly summarising the two articles, Cox believes decline is on-going in the U.S. today and has been for the past four decades. Whereas, Williams is of the

In 1787 President George Washington delivered his farewell speech. In it, he warned “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.” Today, the United States is entangled in too many alliances and too many problems. Since the 1990s, the U.S. has become more invested in being the world police, by becoming engaged in too many issues that did not affect them. They need to take care of their problems before dealing with other countries’. I believe that America’s role in the world should be equal to those of other countries—it should still be powerful, but it should use its power for itself primarily. Doing this, the United States would reduce war time and war

Taking away nuclear deterrence from the argument, it is the conventional forces that provide the U.S. military to protect the homeland, deter aggression, and project power abroad – the direct aims of the 2014 QDR and 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. Legitimate deterrence requires credible capability. The 2014 QDR seeks to reset the military, not to whitewash the past decade or the likelihood of continued irregular conflict, but rather to reset and reinvest the conventional capabilities for conflict with a peer competitor. To do so requires

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the

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

“Until early in [the twentieth] century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then, two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe” . President Woodrow Wilson was the leader who would initiate the ideologies of American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Up until his Presidency, American foreign policy was simply to fulfill the course of manifest destiny, and to remain free of entanglements overseas. Although he could not convince his fellow politicians on Capitol Hill of the probable success of his ideas, he did persuade the fellow writers of the Treaty of

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.

Potential European Superpower. The possibility that one nation can rise to the same strength (both economically and militarily) as the United States could threaten European peace. The United States “does not want a peer competitor. Instead, it