Us Foreign Policy

Until the end of the nineteenth century, American foreign policy essentially followed the guidelines laid down by George Washington, in his Farewell Address to the American people: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is—in extending our commercial relations—to have with them as little political connection as possible.” By avoiding

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.

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

The Truman Doctrine was a turning point in U.S. foreign relations. To understand how and why the Truman Doctrine changed U.S. foreign policy, there must be a review of U.S. foreign policy throughout the twentieth century. This paper will explore U.S. foreign policy beginning with the Spanish-American War. World expectations

As America approached the 20th century it had achieved great prestige in the world for having a prosperous economy built on free market system. The facets of an American identity mostly revolved around corporate power and stability. The corporations grew at a national scale effortlessly, and within years, international; the United States was following similar footsteps of the British East India Company as an emulation to the western hemisphere. Contracted railroads, lands, and farms were the crux of American imperialism in the Americas. The strengthening grip of the corporations on the government gave America a series of questions that it dealt with in the early 1900s. The two frontrunners to answer the puzzling questions were the 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, and the 28th president Woodrow Wilson. They both wanted the betterment of America both domestically and at the world stage. However, the assertive nature of Theodore Roosevelt made him an exemplar of American ideals and democracy for the rest of the world.

He supported women’s suffrage and social programs, and he had excellent ideas for America’s future. In this way, Wilson was a success. However, his skill with his own nation is an underscore to his failure with the nations of the world. Initially, for example, Wilson objected to American entrance into WWI; he pushed the proposal away until it was unsafe to continue to do ignore it. Only when the American people felt legitimately threatened did he ask Congress to enter the war. To his credit, however, once Wilson committed to interventionism, he did not shy back. Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which aimed to create global unity with the new League of Nations, were his children. He refused to compromise on any of the disputed sections, despite threats from the legislature to fail the bill. Perhaps Wilson’s initial lethargy was due to some vision of his future, as the grand ideas that were so successful stateside failed to translate into the global arena. His idealism and intellectualism, seemingly advantageous traits, contributed to his ultimate legacy as an unsuccessful president.

At the end of World War One, the American public were completely against becoming entangled in another European war which would cost American soldier’s lives and be expensive to the economy; this was a feeling which also ran through Congress. The feeling became known as ‘isolationism’. An isolationist policy meant that it focused on domestic affairs and disregarded international issues. During the period, particularly as World War Two grew nearer, it became increasingly difficult for US foreign policy to avoid becoming involved with foreign situations. Despite this, much of foreign policy during the period could be considered isolationist; this essay will attempt to

The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards they set for themselves (Kroc). The United States president role in foreign policy is very important. Foreign policy has always been a job part of all presidencies that deserves the president’s full attention as well as part of American History. Many believe George W. Bush made America look horrible with his term of being our leader; however one reason was how he dealt with foreign policy. Our recent president Barrack Obama did two terms and people thought he was not a good leader, but his foreign policy benefited the country in some ways. Each has main characteristics that separate them from each other which I will be bringing about. By comparing the two presidents’ foreign policy will

America’s Foreign policy is complicated, which is exactly where there is no one foreign policy tradition that can accurately describe the best for America to handle foreign relations. Of the four main traditions, there are three that, combined, create what America needs to peruse when it comes to their foreign policy.

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

     Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose primary objectives were both similar to and different from Wilson’s, entered the U.S. into WWII after the Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. His two major concerns for doing this were his obligation to protect American democracy, and to increase economic expansion, which had ceased to exist in the decade prior to WWII as a result of the Great Depression. Although all four major foreign policy objectives played a role in the U.S.’ entrance into WWII, I will explore these two policies in depth using speeches of FDR’s that provide his rationale for U.S. involvement. Roosevelt knew that entrance into the war would help boost the crippled

In politics, individuals often play a tremendous role both in a domestic and foreign policy of states. Numerous examples of this can be found from historical events. For example, Adolf Hitler is the most notable individual who simply changed the entire world history. Hitler was able to change Germany’s goal and actions with his unique desire to conquer the world. It was a clear example of how one person’s idea could spread throughout the world and even change the history. However, this notion of individual’s significant influence can be challenging to come into reality due to the fact that individuals must show unusually strong ambition or an idea to have significant impacts. Additionally, Byman and Pollock have argued that if power is concentrated in the leader, then it is likely to see individual’s influence in state’s behavior (Byman, Pollock, 2001). From this argument, I could further argue that particularly in the system of dictatorship similar to the regime in North Korea, individuals could matter significantly. Likewise, in DPRK, their leader Kim Jong-Un is the most powerful man as it is seen in figure 2. If this argument is plausible, the reason why North Korean invests excessively in the military and the nuclear weapon is because of their leader’s personal goal and aspiration. In order to prove this hypothesis presented above, I will use Byman and Pollock’s pieces’ evidence that proved individuals matter in politics.

The United States has a complicated history with the Middle East, and this has often been reflected in foreign policy decisions. The significance of the region has always remained strong, even as the main goals and methods of accomplishing those goals have twisted and evolved over time. In recent decades, dealing with increasing opposition to US interests by those in the Middle East has become a more prominent concern. This was drawn into the forefront of citizens' minds in 2001. While the 9/11 attacks did not serve as a major turning point in the US’s foreign policy towards the Middle East, they did act to accelerate a decision path that the United States was already on.

Chapter 1 – The History and Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis by Valerie M. Hudson