U.s. Foreign Policies During The Arab Spring

Topic: U.S-Arab relations: Assessing the successes and failures of American policy towards the GCC since 2008.

United States policy towards the Iran-Iraq war was interesting to say the least. While the United States claimed to be a neutral party, they supported Iraq for the majority of the war, supported Iran for a brief period, then went back to only supporting Iraq. Both sides committed numerous atrocities and war crimes, and for the most part received little to no American condemnation. Through this essay, I will explore the reasons for the US involvement, and their responses to a number of war crimes, particularly Iraq’s use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

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

Of the dozens of times America has chosen to get involved in foreign countries in the last 60 years, several stand out as obvious successes, including U.S.-led interventions in Korea, Kosovo and Lebanon. In addition, there are several well-known examples of seeming failure, as well as numerous outright refusals to become involved in the affairs of another nation. Each of these – successes, failures and refusals to act – help to answer the important question of what role America should assume in coming decades.

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.

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

American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop

With the conflict within Africa becoming more prominent, President Walker and his staff weighed the idea of intervention. Being a neoconservative, intervention of tyranny and pushing democracy across borders is very common (Gee, 2017). Feeling a creeping possibility of impeachment, the President and his staff pull the trigger (Powell, 2011, p. 1). On the morning of May 25, 2030, the news broke that the United States had invaded the region of Lake Chad and Greater Sahel.

In the same vein, the invasion of Iraq without U.N. authorization has seriously harmed the United States image and to most, this war is perceived as a political disaster. Although the severe actions of former President George W. Bush’s administration are difficult to justify, it is the American populace who has elected a leader that demonstrates constraint and willingness to cooperate with the international system in the 2009 election. Obama’s composure and reluctance to act unilaterally during the Arab Spring denotes the United States ability to be a team player. Due to the aforementioned, one should not dismiss the United States as completely out of the game or incapable or acting multilaterally. After all, one should bear in mind that the U.S. was at the forefront of the United Nations’ formation; an institution that promotes universal human rights and multilateral cooperation. All things considered, the mistakes of a previous administration should not forever condemn a nation.

The Middle East region has been seeing and absorbing the effects of war and poverty for decades. The United States (U.S.) has provided support in the past to assist the Middle East, and that has been quite successful. For this reason, the U.S., a world superpower, should be directly involved in ending conflict in the Middle East because they possess a capable military, the global economy is directly affected by the Middle East, and the U.S. is capable of peaceful mediation between conflicted areas in the Middle East. The Middle East is a region that has constantly been involved in warfare, and the U.S. has taken appropriate measures to ensure that peace was possible, even in this war-stricken area. The U.S. has also provided aid in regard to the oil reserves in the Middle East, which are significant to global development. This protection allows the industry to continue, and it benefits nations around the world. Lastly, the U.S. has successfully mediated discussion between conflicted nations, like Egypt and Israel, to achieve a common goal that set them on a path for peace. While there are many reasons the U.S. should be involved, one of the most direct reasons is military capability.

Foreign Policy, is government’s strategy in dealing with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. America’s Foreign Policy is determined how America, conducts relations with other nations around the world. It is designed to achieve certain goals. It shows the power to protect and project America’s national interests around the world in political, economic, military, and ideological areas. America’s Foreign Policy today covers a wide range of functions and issues. It includes establishing and maintaining diplomatic relations with other countries and international organizations, peacekeeping functions, such as working with allies to assure regional and international security, furthermore, it covers a range of international economic

Foreign Policies are influenced and created by two branches, executive and legislative. The U.S. Constitution put this delegation of power into place. Foreign Policy determines how the U.S. will network with other countries and has been a large factor in our history since implemented. The process of the policy is not always the simplest; it has caused tensions and angst between Congress and the President through the years. A discrepancy between the two branches was and is not uncommon, yet the relationship between the two is indefinite. Each division has responsibilities and its own appointed power over the making of policies and bills. There are checks and balances to the process, where the President can veto a proposal by legislation

We felt this to be a misguided policy on the part of the Government of Egypt.” (Eisenhower Radio and Television Report)

In late 2010, a tidal wave of uprisings and protests in various parts of the Arab world emerged. It began with the Tunisian revolution when the martyr Mahmoud Bouazizi set fire to himself as a result of the deteriorating economic and social. This led to protests and demonstrations that ended with the fall of the ruling regime. In Tunisia which sparked the beginning of revolutions in many Arab countries, this is known as an Arab Spring. The question remains what are the real reasons that led to the Arab Spring and its effects? the causes of the Arabic spring May be varied, depending on the places, however the reasons can be a corruption in economic policies and demand social justice as the key motives and protests in the Arab world. This essay will discuss the most important reasons, and the effects of what is known as the Arab Spring.