Jump to content

Foreign policy of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chorrol07 (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 1 September 2010 (→‎Ukraine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States
Federal government
Legislature
Executive
Judiciary
Elections
  • National Elections
  • Elections by State and Territory
Political parties
Political ideologies
Federalism
Foreign relations

The foreign policy of the United States is the policy by which the United States interacts with foreign nations and sets standards of interaction for its organizations, corporations and individual citizens. The U.S. is highly influential in the world. The global reach of the United States is backed by a $14 trillion economy, approximately a quarter of global GDP, and a defense budget of $711 billion, which accounts for approximately 43% of global military spending. The U.S. Secretary of State is the foreign minister and is the official charged with state-to-state diplomacy, although the president has ultimate authority over foreign policy; that policy includes defining the national interest, as well as the strategies chosen to both safeguard that and achieve its policy goals.[1]

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."[2] In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation."[3] U.S. foreign policy has been the subject of much debate, praise and criticism both domestically and abroad.[4]

Foreign policy powers of the President and Congress

Main articles: Treaty Clause, War Powers Clause, Appointments Clause, and Foreign Commerce Clause

Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President of the United States negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.[5] The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces; however only Congress has authority to declare war,[6] and the civilian and military budget is written by the Congress.[7] The United States Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy. Both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress also has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

Overview of history of U.S. foreign policy

Main article: History of U.S. foreign policy
The Jay Treaty of 1795 aligned the U.S. more with Britain and less with France, leading to political polarization at home

The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from isolationism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemon during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century.[citation needed] Since the 19th century, US foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the Founding Fathers' realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations.[8]

Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address; these included among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", and advocating free trade with all nations. These policies became the basis of the Federalist Party into the early 19th century; since then, the historic document has been repeated many, including annually since 1899 in the Senate (Congress ended the practice in 1984). The United States did not sign another permanent treaty until the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by Presidential 'doctrines', named for them. Initially these were uncommon events, but also since WWII, these have been made by all presidents, except Ford and Bush Sr.

Despite occasional entanglements with European Powers such as the War of 1812 and the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. foreign policy was marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade and scope during the 19th century, and it maintained its policy of avoiding wars with and between European powers. Concerning its domestic borders, the 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled the nation's geographical area; Spain ceded the territory of Florida in 1819; a war with Mexico in 1848 added the territories of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California; the U.S. bought Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, and it overthrew and eventually annexed Hawaii in 1898. With the warred acquisition that year of the former Spanish possessions of Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, at the turn of the 20th century, it looked as if the U.S. also might become a colonial power like Britain, France or Germany of the time but, these territories were given independence, except for Puerto Rico, which voted to remain part of the United States. The Civil War set important precedents of national will over states' rights.

The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which the United States, along with allied powers, defeated its enemies and increased its international reputation, but at great cost in terms of lives and treasure. President Wilson's Fourteen Points, developed from his particular ideology, helped establish the armistice ending WWI, and became the basis of the German surrender negotiated at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the League of Nations, which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. Following eruption of the next war in Europe, the loss of the continent by former allies, and The Blitz, isolationist sentiment remained strong. Speaking to the nation in January 1941, President Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which ought to be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech and religion, both domestically enjoyed, and also proposed, translated into world terms, the freedom from want and fear. Even before becoming directly involved in the war, Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-war world among potential allies at the Atlantic Conference; specific points were included to correct earlier failures, which were accepted shortly thereafter by many and a step toward the United Nations. After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant non-colonial economic power with broad influence in much of the world. Almost immediately however, the world witnessed division into broad two camps during the Cold War; one side was led by the U.S., and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century, and was characterized by ideological struggle.[citation needed] A policy of containment was adopted to limit Soviet expansion, and a series of proxy wars were fought with mixed results. In 1989, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War ended without the feared World War III. With this, new challenges confront U.S. policymakers.[citation needed] U.S. foreign policy is characterized still by a commitment to free trade, protection of its national interests, and a concern for human rights[citation needed].

In the 21st century, U.S. influence remains strong but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of economic output compared to rising nations such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and the newly consolidated European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the specter of nuclear terrorism. Foreign policy analysts Hachigian and Sutphen in their book The Next American Century suggest all six powers have similar vested interests in stability and terrorism prevention and trade; if they can find common ground, then the next decades may be marked by peaceful growth and prosperity.[9]

Foreign policy law

Main articles: Treaty and Treaty Clause

In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:

  • Congressional-executive agreements are made by the president or Congress. When made by Congress, a majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation. While the constitution does not expressly state that these agreements are allowed, and while constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they're unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their validity.
  • Executive agreements are made by the president alone.
  • Treaties are formal written agreements specified by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution. The president makes a treaty with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. For example, President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was rejected by the U.S. Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently made separate agreements with different nations. While most international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty, the U.S. sense of the term is more restricted.

International law in most nations considers all three of the above agreements as treaties. In most nations, treaty laws supersede domestic law. So if there's a conflict between a treaty obligation and a domestic law, then the treaty usually prevails.

In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as distinct. Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterwards. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if this is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including the 1900 Supreme Court decision in Paquete Habana, a late 1950s decision in Reid v. Covert, and a lower court ruling in 1986 in Garcia-Mir v. Meese. Further, the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to rule a treaty as void by declaring it "unconstitutional", although as of 2009, it has never exercised this power.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the State Department has taken the position that the Vienna convention represents established law. Generally when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, because of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a caveat to the text of every treaty that says, in effect, that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, then the U.S. legally can't abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.

Geography of American foreign policy

NATO

A map of allies of the United States
  NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions
  Major non-NATO allies, plus Republic of China (Taiwan)
  Signatories of Partnership for Peace with NATO

The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 28 nation alliance consists of neighbor,Canada and much of Europe, including NATO's second largest military; the United Kingdom . Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. NATO is restricted to within the North American and European areas. Starting in 1989, the United States also created a major non-NATO ally status (MNNA) for five nations; this number was increased in the late 1990s and following the September 11 attacks; it currently includes fourteen nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

United Kingdom

Main article: United Kingdom-United States relations
Queen Elizabeth II welcomes President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama to Buckingham Palace on April 1, 2009.
Further information: Special Relationship and Anglosphere

United States foreign policy affirms its alliance with the United Kingdom as its most important bilateral relationship in the world, evidenced by aligned political affairs between the White House and 10 Downing Street, as well as joint military operations carried out between the two nations. While both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain close relationships with many other nations around the world, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing with each other has been described as "unparalleled" among major powers throughout the 20th and early 21st century.[10]

The United States and Britain share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion.[11]

Canada

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) and President Obama (left) meet in Ottawa in February 2009
Main article: Canada-United States relations

The bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States is of extreme importance to both countries. About 75–85% of Canadian trade is with the United States, and Canada is the United States' largest trading partner. While there are disputed issues between the two nations, relations are close and the two countries famously share the "world's longest undefended border."

The United States was a close ally of Canada in both World Wars (in both cases Canadian involvement preceded U.S. involvement by several years), the Korean War, and the Cold War. Canada was an original member of NATO and the two countries' air defenses are fused in NORAD.

Australia

Main article: Australia-United States relations
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, talks with President Obama in Washington

The United States' relationship with Australia is a very close one, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that "America doesn't have a better friend in the world than Australia".[12] The relationship is formalised by the ANZUS treaty and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The two countries have a shared history, both have previously been British Colonies and many Americans flocked to the Australian goldfields in the 19th century. At a strategic level, the relationship really came to prominence in World War II, when the two nations worked extremely closely in the Pacific war against Japan, with General Douglas MacArthur undertaking his role as Supreme Allied Commander based in Australia, effectively having Australian troops and resources under his command. During this period, the cultural interaction between Australia and the US were elevated to a higher level as over 1 million U.S. military personnel moved through Australia during the course of the war. The relationship continued to evolve throughout the second half of the 20th Century, and today now involves strong relationships at the executive and mid levels of government and the military, leading Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kurt M. Campbell to declare that "in the last ten years, [Australia] has ascended to one of the closest one or two allies [of the U.S.] on the planet"[13].

Mexico

Main article: Mexico–United States relations

The United States shares a unique and often complex relationship with the United Mexican States. With a history of conflict stemming back to the Texas Revolution and the Mexican-American War, several treaties have been concluded between the two nations, most notably the Gadsden Purchase, and multilaterally with Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Illegal immigration, arms sales, sweatshop labor, drug smuggling, and international child abduction[14] continue to be contentious issues in 21st century Mexican-American relations.

Middle East

The United States has seven major non-NATO allies in the Greater Middle East region. These allies are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Morocco. Israel and Egypt are leading recipients of foreign aid, receiving 2.75 billion[15] and 1.75 billion[16] in 2010.

United States has invested several hundred billion dollars in re-building Iraq's infrastructure and military in the aftermath of 2003 invasion of Iraq[17]. Turkey is host to approximately 90 B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base[18]. Other allies include Qatar, where 3,500 US troops are based.[19]

The U.S. has built a non-NATO alliance with Pakistan to assist with the War in Afghanistan and jointly combat terror in the subcontinent.

Taiwan

Taiwan (Republic of China), does not have official diplomatic relations recognized and is no longer officially recognized by the State Department of the United States, but it conducts unofficial diplomatic relations through their de facto embassy, commonly known as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)", and is considered to be a strong Asian ally of the United States.[20]

Bulgaria

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement with Bulgaria, a new NATO member, in 2006. The treaty allows the U.S. (not NATO) to develop as joint U.S.-Bulgarian facilities the Bulgarian air bases at Bezmer (near Yambol) and Graf Ignatievo (near Plovdiv), the Novo Selo training range (near Sliven), and a logistics centre in Aytos, as well as to use the commercial port of Burgas. At least 2,500 U.S. personnel will be located there. The treaty also allows the U.S. to use the bases "for missions in tiers country without a specific authorization from Bulgarian authorities", and grants U.S. militaries immunity from prosecution in this country.[21]

Another agreement with Romania permits the U.S. to use the Mihail Kogălniceanu base.

Georgia

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili sees membership of the NATO as a premise of stability for Georgia. On March 9, 2007, President Saakashvili announced his plans to increase total Georgian troop strength in Iraq to 2000, making Georgia one of the biggest supporters of Coalition Forces, and keeping its troops in Kosovo and Afghanistan.[22] Following the outbreak of war between Georgia and Russia on August 8, 2008, Mikheil Saakashvili said that Georgia was pulling its entire 2,000-strong contingent of troops from Iraq.[23] During August 10 and 11, 2008, the U.S. Air Force airlifted the whole contingent out of Iraq.[24] .[25]

Ukraine

Ukraine also has a close relationship with the United States. President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO.[26][27][28] Russian reactions are negative.[29] At a NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008 President Bush pressed NATO to ignore Russia's objections and back membership for Ukraine and Georgia.[30] Ukraine is currently the only non-NATO member supporting every NATO mission.[31] President Bush noted that the President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko was the first foreign leader he called after his inaugural address.[32]

Kosovo

The UN Security Council remains divided on the question of Kosovo declaration of independence. Kosovo declared its independence on February 17, 2008, which Serbia opposes. Of the five members with veto power, USA, UK, and France recognized the declaration of independence, and China has expressed concern, while Russia considers it illegal. "In its declaration of independence, Kosovo committed itself to the highest standards of democracy, including freedom and tolerance and justice for citizens of all ethnic backgrounds", Bush said on February 19, 2008.[33][34]

Hub and Spoke vs Multilateral

While America's relationships with Europe have tended to be in terms of multilateral frameworks, such as NATO, America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a series of bilateral relationships where the client states would coordinate with the United States in order to not have to deal directly with each other. On May 30, 2009, at the Shangri-La Dialogue Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc arrangements in the area.[35]

Oil

Persian Gulf

Further information: Energy policy of the United States and Petroleum politics

The U.S. currently produces about 40% of the oil that it consumes; its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s. Since the U.S.'s oil consumption continues to rise, and its oil production continues to fall, this ratio may continue to decline.[36] President George W. Bush has identified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security concern".[37]

Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf.[38][39] Despite its distance, the Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II. Petroleum is of central importance to modern armies, and the United States—as the world's leading oil producer at that time—supplied most of the oil for the Allied armies. Many U.S. strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the U.S. oil supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil reserves.[40]

The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the Cold War. Three Cold War United States Presidential doctrines—the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine—played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its "national interests" in the Persian Gulf region.[41] Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine", which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War.[42] Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.[43][44][45][46]

Canada

Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.[47]

Africa

In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28.4% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31.4%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.[48]

Foreign aid

Main article: United States Agency for International Development

Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget and is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (e.g., contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund).[49]

In absolute dollar terms, the United States is the largest international aid donor ($22.7 billion in 2006), but as a percent of gross national income, its contribution is only 0.2%, proportionally much smaller than contributions of countries such as Sweden (1.04%) and the United Kingdom (0.52%)[citation needed]. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid.

Military

The United States has fought wars and intervened militarily on many occasions. See, Timeline of United States military operations. The U.S. also operates a vast network of military bases around the world. See, List of United States military bases.

In recent years, the U.S. has used its military superiority as sole superpower to lead a number of wars, including, most recently, the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as part of its global "War on Terror."

Military aid

Main articles: United States military aid, United States Foreign Military Financing, and Foreign Military Sales

The U.S. provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia.[50]. Since 9/11, Pakistan has received approximately 11.5 billion in direct military aid.[51]

As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.[52]

Foreign military aid by country

Estimated US foreign military financing and aid by country for 2010.

Country Military aid (USD Billions)
 Iraq 6.5
 Afghanistan 5.6[53]
 Israel 2.75[15]
 Egypt 1.75[16]
 Pakistan 1.6[54]
Colombia .834[55]
 Jordan .300[56]
Palestine .100[16]
 Yemen .070

Missile defense

Main articles: National missile defense and Strategic Defense Initiative

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983[57] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles,[58] later dubbed "Star Wars".[59] The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today.[60]

In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system[61] (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan).[62] According to press reports the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree)[63] to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.[64][65]

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia's border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.[66][67] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.[68] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under a Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[69]

On August 14, 2008, The United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.[70] "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy, said.[61][71]

Covert actions

See also: Covert U.S. regime change actions and Reagan Doctrine

United States foreign policy also includes secret actions, such as covert actions to topple foreign governments, including democratically-elected governments. For example, in 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, orchestrated a coup d'état against the democratically-elected government of Iran led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.[72] See Operation Ajax.

Other covert actions undertaken have not yet achieved their desired outcome. ABC news reported, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources, that U.S. officials have been secretly advising and indirectly funneling funding for a Pakistani Balochi militant group named Jundullah responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran. The U.S. provides no direct funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight; thus the U.S. finds ways to funnel money through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Persian Gulf states, according to tribal leaders. The CIA denies funding the group.[73] Jundullah is suspected of being associated with al Qaida, a charge the group denied.[73][74] It has been reported that the U.S. already has military commando units operating inside Iran[75] working with the militant Balochi. U.S. policy aims to light "the fire of ethnic and sectarian strife" to destabilize and eventually topple the government of Iran.[75] [76]

More recently, after the Palestinian election in 2006 in which Hamas won the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament, the U.S. provided training and major military assistance for an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and the West Bank, which was successful in removing Hamas from power in the West Bank.[77][78] Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas then installed an unelected "emergency cabinet", led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, in place of the Hamas government in the West Bank.[79][80]

War on Drugs

Main article: War on Drugs

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts date back to at least 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement that prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries.

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005 [6], the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous twelve months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

Afghanistan is, as of March 2008, the greatest illicit (in Western World standards) opium producer in the world, before Burma (Myanmar), part of the so-called "Golden Crescent". As much as one-third of Afghanistan's GDP comes from growing poppy and illicit drugs including opium and its two derivatives, morphine and heroin, as well as hashish production.[81] Opium production in Afghanistan has soared to a new record in 2007, with an increase on last year of more than a third, the United Nations has said.[82] Some 3.3 million Afghans are now involved in producing opium.[83]

Former U.S. State Department Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Thomas Schweich, in a New York Times article dated July 27, 2007, asserts that opium production is protected by the government of Hamid Karzai as well as by the Taliban, as all parties to political conflict in Afghanistan as well as criminals benefit from opium production, and, in Schweich's opinion, the U.S. military turns a blind eye to opium production as not being central to its anti-terrorism mission.[84][85]

The Prime Minister for Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, is alleged to have extensive criminal links. During the period of time when Thaçi was head of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), it was reported by the Washington Times to be financing its activities by trafficking heroin and cocaine into western Europe.[86][87] The Bush administration has consistently supported Kosovo independence from Serbia.[88]

History of U.S. installing governments through military force

Main article: History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily

Critics have sometimes accused the U.S. of trying to use military force to install governments in foreign nations[89] in a way that works against the interests of other peoples and nations or that had good intentions but failed to achieve the intended good results.[90][91] Some studies suggest some interventions failed or backfired or were ineffective,[92][93][94][95][96] while others suggest success has been mixed[92][97][98][99][100] and in some cases results were positive.[92][101][101][102] There have been studies suggesting democracy failed to catch hold not because of American involvement but because conditions were not ready for the change.[103] Some thinkers suggest that economic development is a requirement before democracy can take root.[103]

Criticism of United States foreign policy

Main article: Criticism of American foreign policy

Critics cite extensive human rights abuses, support of dictatorships, overthrowing of democratically elected governments, economic imperialism, violations of international law, aggressive wars, and other issues. Criticism of American foreign policy contains a more detailed look at criticisms of American foreign policy.

Support

U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a meeting with Indian and American business leaders in New Delhi to discuss bilateral trade.

Regarding support for various dictatorships, especially during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz challenges the notion that this violation of core American values actually served U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the 'realist' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.[104][105]

Halperin et al. writes that there is a widely held view that poor countries need to delay democracy until they develop. The argument went —as presented in the writings of Samuel Huntington and Seymour Martin Lipset— that if a poor country became democratic, because of the pressures in a democracy to respond to the interests of the people, they would borrow too much, they would spend the money in ways that did not advance development. These poor decisions would mean that development would not occur; and because people would then be disappointed, they would return to a dictatorship. Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator — it was never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank account—wait until that produces development, which produces a middle class, and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will have a democratic government. The study argues that this is wrong. Poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[106]

Many of the U.S.'s former enemies have democratized, and many have become U.S. allies. The Philippines (1946), South Korea (1948), West Germany (1949), Japan (1952), Austria (1955), the Panama Canal Zone (1979), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), the Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples of former possessions that have gained independence. Many nations in Eastern Europe have joined NATO. (Note, statements regarding degree of democracy are based on the classification at these times in the Polity data series).

Many democracies have voluntary military affairs with United States. See NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations. [7] [8]

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.[107]

Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[108][109] Media may be biased against the U.S. regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[110][111] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military and have a less active foreign policy since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.[112][113]

Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all the human rights violations in nations they have supported. He writes that it is generally agreed that Guatemala was the worst of the US-backed regimes during the Cold War. However, the U.S. cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War.[105] The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.[114]

Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health." [9] According to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other."[115] In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken political reforms. [10]

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools [11] Examples of these tools are as follows:

  • A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" in compliance with a 2002 law (enacted and signed by President George W. Bush, which requires the Department to report on actions taken by the U.S. Government to encourage respect for human rights. [12]
  • A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." [13]
  • In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards." [14]
  • The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad. [15]
  • The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly-confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations. [16]
  • The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, which is mostly funded by the U.S. Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world

See also

References

  1. ^ citation needed
  2. ^ U.S. Dept of State - Foreign Policy Agenda
  3. ^ Committee on Foreign Affairs: U.S. House of Representatives
  4. ^ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0204-01.htm
  5. ^ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html
  6. ^ U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html
  7. ^ U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html
  8. ^ Richard Russell, "American Diplomatic Realism: A Tradition Practised and Preached by George F. Kennan," Diplomacy and Statecraft, Nov 2000, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp 159-83
  9. ^ Nikolas K. Gvosdev (2008-01-02). "FDR's Children". National Interest. Retrieved 2010-01-13. Hachigian ... and Sutphen ... recognize that the global balance of power is changing; that despite America's continued predominance, the other pivotal powers "do challenge American dominance and impinge on the freedom of action the U.S. has come to enjoy and expect." Rather than focusing on the negatives, however, they believe that these six powers have the same vested interests: All are dependent on the free flow of goods around the world and all require global stability in order to ensure continued economic growth (and the prosperity it engenders). {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ James, Wither (2006). "An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century". European Security. 15 (1): 47–65. doi:10.1080/09662830600776694. ISSN 0966-2839. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ US Department of State, Background Note on the United Kingdom
  12. ^ [1]
  13. ^ [2]
  14. ^ Allen, Ernie (August 31, 2009). "CHILD ABDUCTIONS: GLOBALLY, NATIONALLY AND ALONG THE U.S./MEXICO BORDER". The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved April 16, 2010.
  15. ^ a b http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/aid2010.html Congress Approves FY2010 Aid to Israel
  16. ^ a b c http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-aid-tied-to-purchase-of-arms-20100101-llsb.html US aid tied to purchase of arms
  17. ^ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11
  18. ^ http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-206266-report-us-considers-withdrawing-nuclear-bombs-from-turkey.html
  19. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130093&page=1
  20. ^ Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, ed., Dangerous Strait: The U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis (2005)
  21. ^ manir.info/article.php3?id_article=3651 OTAN - Le grand jeu des bases militaires en terre européenne, Manlio Dilucci, French translation published on May 9, 2006, in Le Grand Soir newspaper of an article originally published in Il Manifesto on April 30, 2006
  22. ^ Georgia to double troops in Iraq BBC
  23. ^ "Peace bid as Ossetia crisis rages". BBC. 2008-08-09. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  24. ^ "U.S. takes Georgian troops home from Iraq". Air Force Times. 2008-08-11. Retrieved 2008-08-12.
  25. ^ Tear gas used on Georgia protest, BBC News, 7 November 2007
  26. ^ BBC NEWS | Europe | Bush to back Ukraine's Nato hopes
  27. ^ Obama Statement on Ukraine's Commitment to Join NATO | U.S. Senator Barack Obama
  28. ^ McCain Backs Tougher Line Against Russia - March 27, 2008 - The New York Sun
  29. ^ Nato allies divided over Ukraine and Georgia, guardian.co.uk, December 2, 2008
  30. ^ Nato summit: George Bush backs Ukraine and Georgia for Nato, The Times, April 2, 2008
  31. ^ Bush backs Ukraine on Nato bid, BBC News, April 1, 2008
  32. ^ The Orange Revolution: One Year Later, Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, December 5, 2005
  33. ^ Bush Hails Kosovo Independence, U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs
  34. ^ Bush insists Kosovo must be independent and receives hero's welcome in Albania, The Guardian
  35. ^ Gates Delivers Keynote Address to Open Asia Security Conference
  36. ^ Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
  37. ^ Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China Falls as Oil Prices Rise, Bloomberg.com
  38. ^ Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia, New York Times
  39. ^ The End of Cheap Oil, National Geographic
  40. ^ Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth
  41. ^ The war is about oil but it's not that simple, msnbc.com
  42. ^ The United States Navy and the Persian Gulf
  43. ^ What if the Chinese were to apply the Carter Doctrine?, Haaretz - Israel News
  44. ^ Selling the Carter Doctrine, TIME
  45. ^ Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil, Times Online
  46. ^ Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq, The Guardian
  47. ^ See Energy Information Administration, "Canada" (2009 report)
  48. ^ http://www.agoa.gov/resources/US_African_Trade_Profile_2009.pdf
  49. ^ Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy
  50. ^ http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/colombia/us-military-aid-to-colombia/page.do?id=1101863
  51. ^ http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=226110
  52. ^ Fox News, 1 November 2004 Analysts Ponder U.S. Basing in Iraq
  53. ^ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40699.pdf Afghanistan: US foreign assistance
  54. ^ http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Final_DP_2009_06_08092009.pdf Aid to Pakistan
  55. ^ http://www.ciponline.org/facts/below_the_radar_eng.pdf
  56. ^ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33546.pdf Jordan: Background and U.S relations
  57. ^ Federation of American Scientists. Missile Defense Milestones. Accessed March 10, 2006.
  58. ^ Johann Hari: Obama's chance to end the fantasy that is Star Wars, The Independent, November 13, 2008
  59. ^ Historical Documents: Reagan's 'Star Wars' speech, CNN Cold War
  60. ^ "How Missile Defense Systems Will Work"
  61. ^ a b Missile defense backers now cite Russia threat
  62. ^ U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense, washingtonpost.com
  63. ^ Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech Republic
  64. ^ Europe diary: Missile defence, BBC News
  65. ^ Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe
  66. ^ Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield, Telegraph
  67. ^ China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn U.S. missile defense plans, International Herald Tribune
  68. ^ Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence, The Guardian
  69. ^ U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense, USATODAY.com
  70. ^ Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal, The New York Times, August 15, 2008
  71. ^ Russia angry over U.S. missile shield, Al Jazeera English, August 15, 2008
  72. ^ "Special Report: Secret History of the CIA in Iran". New York Times. 2000.
  73. ^ a b Brian Ross (2007-04-03). "Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran". The Blotter Blog. ABC News. Retrieved 2008-11-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  74. ^ Seymour Hersh, "Preparing the Battlefield, The Bush Administration Steps Up Its Secret Moves Against Iran", The New Yorker, July 8, 2008.
  75. ^ a b M K Bhadrakumar (2007-02-24). "Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains". Asia Times Online. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
  76. ^ Fathi, Nazila (2007-02-15). "Car Bomb in Iran Destroys a Bus Carrying Revolutionary Guards". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
  77. ^ Vanity Fair, April 2008, "The Gaza Bombshell", http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
  78. ^ Mark Perry (2007-01-09). "No-goodniks and the Palestinian shootout". Asia Times Online. Retrieved 2008-11-21. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  79. ^ "Palestinian rivals: Fatah & Hamas". BBC News. 2007-06-17. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
  80. ^ Mahmoud al-Zahar (2008-04-16). "No Peace Without Hamas". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
  81. ^ "Afghanistan". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. December 13, 2007.
  82. ^ Afghan opium production at record high
  83. ^ UN horrified by surge in opium trade in Helmand
  84. ^ "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?" by Thomas Schweich, July 27, 2008, New York Times
  85. ^ "Combating Synthetic Drugs, A Global Challenge: U.S. and International Responses", by Thomas A. Schweich, Joseph T. Rannazzisi, James O'Gara, U.S. State Department
  86. ^ "KLA finances fight with heroin sales Terror group is linked to crime network"; Jerry Seper. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 1999. pg. A.1
  87. ^ KLA Linked To Enormous Heroin Trade / Police suspect drugs helped finance revolt, The San Francisco Chronicle
  88. ^ Divisions Harden over Kosovo Independence
  89. ^ Penceny, p. 2
  90. ^ Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de (2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest. 2. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Also see this page.
  91. ^ Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  92. ^ a b c Tures, John A. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations". {{cite journal}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)PDF file.
  93. ^ Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 243–265. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  94. ^ Penceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 183. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.
  95. ^ Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9.
  96. ^ Pei, Samia Amin (2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  97. ^ Penceny, p. 186.
  98. ^ Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute Press. pp. 91–118. ISBN 0-8447-3734-8.
  99. ^ Przeworski, Adam; Przeworski, Adam; Limongi Neto, Fernando Papaterra; Alvarez, Michael M. (1996). "What Makes Democracy Endure" ([dead link]– Scholar search). Journal of Democracy. 7 (1): 39–55. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0016. {{cite journal}}: External link in |format= (help)
  100. ^ Penceny, p. 193
  101. ^ a b Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions. 24 (2): 91–114. doi:10.1080/03050629808434922. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 71 (help)
  102. ^ Review: Shifter, Michael; Peceny, Mark (2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society. 43 (4). Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 43, No. 4: 150. doi:10.2307/3177036. JSTOR 3177036. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  103. ^ a b Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1, 4, 5. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1. Cite error: The named reference "LA" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  104. ^ The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989. David F. Schmitz. 2006.
  105. ^ a b Do the sums, then compare U.S. and Communist crimes from the Cold War Telegraph, 11/12/2005, Niall Ferguson
  106. ^ Morton Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, Michael M. Weinstein, Joanne J. Myers The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace March 17, 2005
  107. ^ Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.
  108. ^ DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Online links: [3][4][5]
  109. ^ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.
  110. ^ Caliendo, S.M. (1999). "All the News That's Fit to Print? New York Times Coverage of Human-Rights Violations". The Harvard International Journal of Press Politics. 4: 48–69. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
  111. ^ Caliendo, Stephen. and Gibney, Mark. (2006). "American Print Media Coverage of Human Rights Violations". Retrieved 2008-04-02. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  112. ^ Give peace a rating May 31, 2007, from The Economist print edition
  113. ^ Japan ranked as world's 5th most peaceful nation: report Japan Today, May 31, 2007
  114. ^ Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
  115. ^ Clinton, Bill (January 28, 2000). "1994 State Of The Union Address". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-01-22.

Further reading

  • Luca Bellocchio, “American foreign policy and global governance”, in A. Gobbicchi (ed.), Globalization, armed conflicts and security, Rubbettino/CEMISS, Roma, 2004, 112-127
  • Luca Bellocchio, Anglosfera. Forma e forza del nuovo Pan-Anglismo, Il Nuovo Melangolo, Genova, 2006.
  • Luca Bellocchio, L'eterna alleanza? La special relationship angloamericana tra continuità e mutamento, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2006.

History of exporting democracy

....

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&oldid=382336860"