U.s. Foreign Policy : Global Power For Recent History

Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America.

The Monroe Doctrine was an assertion of President James Monroe regarding U.S. foreign policy in 1823. In the Doctrine, the President denounced European powers’ any further attempt to colonize and exploit Latin American countries, while promising not to interfere any existing European colonies in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was one of the greatest turning points in American foreign policy as it marked the beginning of America’s rapid development as a world power. Over the past two hundred years of history, the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine had been altered multiple times in order to suit America’s changing foreign policy. For example, in the 1840s, President James Polk used the Monroe Doctrine as an excuse to annex

The physical growth of the United States as a nation and the acquisition of overseas territories suggests that US foreign policy between the years of 1890 and 1919 was imperialist as opposed to isolationist. Within 100 years, America’s population had risen from 5 million to 75 million, acting as a global empire that spanned across Alaska, the Philippines, Cuba and Hawaii. Although, America opted for a different type of imperialism, granting states self-governance and ‘autonomy’, these states were not given independence until they could prove that they had enforced democracy and changed from their ‘uncivilised’ and ‘barbaric’ ways as Pres. Woodrow Wilson would refer to them.

After the years of the American Civil War, America embarked on a manifest destiny, 2.0. America decided they wanted to expand their territory across the waters. There were many approaches that were suggested by previous presidents, all with the same goal: World Dominance.

It’s Monday morning, another weekend over, a new week full of decisions and obstacles for President Obama. A slowly growing economy, tensions with North Korea and soldiers still in Afghanistan and Iraq the President is always quite busy. Even though the President has lots of ad-visors to help him make decision's some advice that would really aid the president is the lesson that “Think before you act, be sure not to overreact” Some examples from the Cold War era that support this lesson are The Cuban Missile Crisis, The My Lai Massacre (involving napalm and agent orange) and the incident at Kent State.

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

The course of U.S. foreign policy history can be understood through “watersheds,” or critical points. These points can serve as dividing lines that illuminate shifts in policy and opinion. However, thinking of this history in terms of critical moments or turning points can simplify the complex actors, sentiments and tendencies that create and influence foreign policy. These critical points are not necessarily the sole cause of massive shifts in policy, but often add impetus to pre-existing tendencies. Nonetheless, watersheds can help the public digest patterns in foreign policy, playing an important role in how American’s perceive their role in the world.

Answering the question as to what postures serves “American interests” going into the future can be incredibly complex. The answer will vary depending on who you ask, and what they think the United States’s foreign policy goals should be. To ease the process of answering this question let us assume that I alone dictate what is good for the United States, and I will harbor no questioning of my judgement. There are four choices, or combination of choices, that were put forward in lecture that could be used to answer this question.

It is no longer appropriate to say, “China is quickly emerging as a global superpower.” The fact is China is just that. Realizing this the United States of America has attempted to once again turn its focus eastward. Continuing problems at home and in the Middle East however have made doing so difficult. Additionally more and more frequently attempts at influencing the ongoing narrative in the Asia- Pacific region have been rebuffed. Even allies have found strength in the emergence of a system that fails to conform to previously prescribed methods and ideals. This leads to a fundamental question America must answer quickly. Has the growing hypocrisy of idealistic political rhetoric versus actual foreign policy finally undermined American credibility with developing nations, or for the purposes of this paper more specifically China? The answer is yes.

During the course of this paper we will examine whether or not U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century has either, fundamentally changed, or if the U.S. is using the same policies it has been using for centuries. First we will discover that much is new in the realm of U.S. foreign policy and lastly we will explore the aspect of globalization. Next we will examine the new approaches the U.S. has used in the 21st century to address the new issues on foreign policy and how they have greatly changed, from President Bush’s focuses on the use of unilateralism and primacy to President Obama’s separation from Bush’s policies and embracing the use of multilateralism and ‘smart’ power. Finally, while we examine a few resolute aspects of the current global stage we can then come to the conclusion that while much is new on the world stage in the 21st century, some aspects of the current foreign policies have remained the same, and will probably stay that way in the future.

Formulation and implementation of foreign policy in the United States is a process enshrined in the constitution. The extent to which the executive or the legislative arms of the government can control, direct and influence the foreign policy while purporting to protect the American people interests is spelt out in the united states constitution. However, overtime, the provisions of the law has been a source of conflict on the application of these powers.

Practicing the foreign policy is when the nation makes treaties with other countries, or when the ambassadors are sent to abroad. The goals of foreign policy of the America are maintaining national security, supporting democracy, promoting world peace, providing aid and establishing open trade. Under the United States Constitution, the foreign policymaking power is divided between the President and the Congress, so that means both have an important role in the making of foreign policy. The Executive and Legislative Branches each has specific power; they assume their responsibilities that are different but actually overlap.

In light of the previous United States presidential elections, much emphasis has been placed upon Americas global relationships with other nations through foreign policy. With the sizeable influence that the United States has globally in regards to trade, economics and international treaties, a shift within ideological belief about these aforementioned concepts will greatly change the current stance, and future action of the American government. In theory, when looking into Republican ideologies on trade, tariffs and treaties, a major shift away from their previous historical beliefs are notable. Because of the large differences in foreign policy ideology between the Republican party and Democratic party, if theory is

Reflecting on the foreign policy decisions of the United States of the Post-World War II era, one will find that the U.S. aimed to make pragmatic foreign policy decisions to strengthen its position in world politics. Some of these decisions may have given the U.S. economic advantages or helped spread democracy to the world. However, they were only the byproducts of a pragmatic strategy that aimed at giving the U.S. a larger sphere of influence in geopolitics over the Soviet Union. It is seen in the example of the Vietnam War that the U.S. favored a pragmatic approach to foreign policy as these decisions reject the idealistic notions of spreading democracy in the world and were not made with materialistic benefits in mind.

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.