U.s. Foreign Policy Decisions

When the world famous liberal thinker Francis Fukuyama in his masterpiece declared that we were witnessing the end of the history, he was greeting the new political structure and also the new international environment, which is peaceful[1]. However, developments that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed us that the dissolution of the Soviets was unexpected. The international society was not ready for peace and Fukuyama’s optimistic assumptions were far from becoming real. Moreover, the international society currently started to realise that the tension and the potential of mass destructive war during the Cold War era had provided a

Prior to World War I, the United States generally chose to follow Washington’s farewell address and stay out of “foreign entanglements”. The United States foreign policy from 1918 to 1953 shifted from isolationism or independent internationalism to a more involved internationalism and containment of communism due to various international events, economic conditions, and US public opinion.

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.

Throughout the mid to late twentieth century the United States was extremely concerned with their foreign policy due to mishaps that surfaced as a result of lazy administration when dealing with communism. As an example, one mishap was how the Truman Administration dealt with China after the KMT surfaced following WWII. Instead of immediately defending the People’s Republic of China, the United States stayed mostly secluded and independent and let China slip into the favor of the KMT. This was an example of the United States’ being too moderate in their foreign policy. However, on the other hand, there were examples where the United States was too aggressive in their foreign policy. An example of this was how the US chose to dealt with North

Foreign policy is how one nation deals with many other nations. The book talks about Ronald Regan trying to create foreign policy and then here you have congress like a bunch of ants floating on a log down river each ant thinking there in charge. Foreign policy from the way “How Congress Works’” says is set up by the president and not really. Having congress get involved makes foreign policy way more complicated then needed. Harry Truman was one man who was asked a question. A random person wanted to know who created foreign policy? His answer was that he did. Now this leads to a important example of foreign policy. This leads to John F. Kennedy and we all know what major foreign policy deal he had to deal with. It was the Cuban missile crisis.

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.

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

In this lesson, I have learned about how the United States dealt with foreign policies in the past, much different than today's world. First let's talk about the French Revolution, it lasted ten years and occurred during Washington's presidency. France overthrew their king and tried to have a government much like the U.S. The French people sent Citizen Genet over to the United States to get their support. Washington, however was having no parts of it. Washington remained neutral, probably the best choice anyone could make, he refused to pick sides. Citizen Genet did not get his way, he began talking smack on the United States, disrespecting their laws. People feared Genet could compromise their national security. The Constitution advocates

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.

America has its fair share of issues on the political agenda. Debates about taxes, gay marriage, health care, and gun control are all major issues that come up in Congress during almost every session. There is one issue, however, that has been debated since the early colonial period, before the United States of America was even a country. The issue of immigration is not only one of the most heavily debated topics in Congress; it is one of the most complex. It is an issue that affects both the nation’s foreign policy and domestic policy. America is, at its core, a nation of immigrants. This melting pot of people from around the world is what has caused this nation to be so successful. Unfortunately, the current immigration system that America has is in need of a complete overhaul. A comprehensive immigration reform package would be beneficial all across the board. The benefits to the economy would be immense, especially in times like these with America’s struggling economy.

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

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

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

America’s foreign policy affects each and every person in the world in terms of prices, taxes, supply of gasoline, and the lives of our soldiers also depends on how we associate with US. This country can bring hope to the lives of the poorest people in the world. It is because of their persona that they are able to respect the lives of others who are not even their own. Most American citizens believe in embracing their values, justice, fairness, democracy, a helping hand when there is need and hard work. Their values are applied from their households, to

The USA exercises its foreign policy through financial aid. For example, scarcity relief in North Korea provides not only humanitarian aid but also a base for the development of democratic ideals and bodies.