Do not waste time. Pressure on allies to oppose regional security forums in favor of their US alliance has failed. Order essays, research papers, term papers, book reviews, assignments, dissertation, thesis Read more…. Kolko states that the Marshall Plan was used for U. Deadline 3 hours 6 hours 12 hours 24 hours 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 20 days, us foreign policy essay.
Popular Topics
Special offer! Promo code: SAVE The purpose of this study is to test the Marxist perspective us foreign policy essay understanding the U. foreign policy across four major time periods. The first part of the paper favors the Marxist theory to in understanding U. foreign policy. Both scholars use Marxism as a critique of capitalism. The second part of the paper tries to analyze whether these theoretical perspectives work, us foreign policy essay. The task of understanding American foreign policy is very complex because the policy has so many diverse factors that shape it today. Some scholars argue that domestic factors are the driving force of the policy while others argue that it is shaped by international systems Stokes,p. In order to understand the policy, there is need to apply theoretical explanations.
Liberals see US foreign policy as very progressive and promotes prosperity and freedom around the world. Conversely, other theorists, especially Marxists, see it as an aggressive force which exploits other countries Dobson, us foreign policy essay,p, us foreign policy essay. Marxists such as Gabriel Kolko and Vladimir Lenin argue that the foreign policy of the United States is driven by bourgeoisie so that American corporations and businesses us foreign policy essay grow bigger, us foreign policy essay. The state actors that administer the foreign policy are puppets that are controlled by the bourgeoisie.
The main argument for Marxists is that U. foreign policy is an instrument to benefit the capitalist class in the U. In his argument, Lenin contends that all major world capitalist powers had colonial conquests that made them to be strong. Kolko argues the U. needed to expand its capitalism but the Soviet Union was a barrier because it had significant political influence. The U. simply wanted to conduct trade with any country without any restrictions. During the Cold War, it expanded its economy around Central and Latin America and this later helped it pump billions of dollars of aid into Western Europe thereby helping the then Europe to recover after the Second World War.
Kolko states that the Marshall Plan was used for U, us foreign policy essay. economic interests only. Inarguably, this also helped the U. economy grow even bigger as the country was able to establish free trade agreements with Europe that directly benefitted it. The Soviet Union simply was far behind the U. The country experienced a slowdown in production in many important industries during the s because it was at that time focused on arms race where it directed most of its money. Due to this, millions of its citizens were left without food and shelter. To catch up with the U. This was however not possible because the U. had far too stronger economy and the Soviets had run out of money and resources. The combination of economic and political power led the USA to celebrate the end of the Cold War and become the most powerful country in the world Choonara,p.
Kolko argued that the United States was not fighting the Soviet influence but rather a challenge that had harmed its economy. The post-Cold War foreign policy that has influenced the U. economy greatly was developed under the presidency of George H. Bush and Bill Clinton. Liberalists argue that the policy was largely meant to limit military interventions. However, it was not easy to manage without the Cold War assimilations. For example, President Bush kept the U. out of Yugoslavia while there were bloody conflicts happening there. Instead, he sent U. Marxists argue that fighting in Kuwait was for economic purposes and was meant to ensure the U. got the control of us foreign policy essay in the region. President Bush declared war with Iraq immediately he was elected during his inaugural speech.
Us foreign policy essay war started as soon as he assumed office and lasted until his departure. The aim of waging the war was to flash out the al-Qaeda group, kill Saddam Hussein, capture Osama Bin Laden, and destroy all forms of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. Indeed, President Bush is among the world leaders who are often cited to have had adopted a foreign policy framework that could be termed as hegemonic. Capitalism resurfaced during his administration, including the use of force or military power in engaging with the world. The former president did not use his presidential powers to foster cordial relations with other nations but to stamp his authority and the supremacy of the United States Exchange, He did not quite believe in diplomacy as he felt it discouraged accountability and hard work.
In his approach, he gave nations ultimatums out of which they could expect serious attacks if they failed to comply. His mission according to scholars was to protect the U. at all costs. He is the leader who took back the country to war after a long time by invading Iraq. During the reign of President Clinton, us foreign policy essay president pretty much continued the same dynamics as those of George Bush. For example, Bush had sent troops to Somalia for a humanitarian intervention. Later, Clinton increased the number of troops purposely to enhance peace and restore order. After conducting spirited attempts at removing the Somali regime, he pulled out the troops from the country, claiming that the U. could not provide a solution to the political crisis in the East African country Milestones, From the Marxist perspective, the U.
could not install its imperialism in Somalia. Soon after Clinton pulled out U. soldiers out of Somalia, us foreign policy essay, Rwanda began to experience politically-ignited tension. The internal war that occurred over a short period resulted in a genocide. It is estimated that betweenand one million people were killed. However, he later apologized for U. The actions of the former president left many questions unanswered. The most pertinent question was why Rwanda was ignored. Marxists us foreign policy essay that the Clinton administration was fully aware of the genocide, but it was just ignored and was not really in U. had more interest in Somalia based on its strategic nature and rich oil deposits, as analysts affirm. Before the Somalia civil war began, the U.
had already sent its oil companies into the country to explore if it had oil deposits. Many industry sources believed that the land could have oil and natural gas. However, unrests made the oil companies to leave because it was too dangerous operating in the country. According to Kolkostate actors are puppets of the capitalist class. Inthe U. made a decision to invade Iraq, us foreign policy essay. It has been the longest and most costly war to the country since the Vietnam War. It has cost 1. The Bush administration had three claims why it invaded Iraq. President Bush believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction because he had previously used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
However, nothing significant was discovered. Saddam had ties with the Al Qaeda, us foreign policy essay. However, no evidence has been found to confirm the ties and he even viewed the Al Qaeda as a threat to his regime. The second claim for the invasion was to bring peace and democracy to Iraqi people. However, nothing really has changed I this regard. Many regions of the country are still unstable and lacking in peace. Before, Iraq was struggling with the war and now with ISIS. In reality, U. plans were to secure oil supplies in the country and put military bases in the Middle East in order to protect its global power.
The Marxist economic theory argues that the Iraq war was created by the bourgeoisie to control new markets in the Middle East, us foreign policy essay. The Marxist perspective again shows that the U. had more interests in Iraq therefore finding Saddam was more important than finding Osama Bin Laden because Iraq is an oil-rich country and Saddam was at the time the obstacle. When Barack Obama was elected, he spoke about peace in the world and the need for more diplomacy. His mission and key undertaking he committed to execute in the first term of his presidency was to end the war in Iraq and initiate deliberations with Iran towards the realization of greater peace in the Middle East.
His other mission was to close the detention facility in Guantanamo bay, and reduce oil consumption. He was aware how many troops had been killed and wounded in the Iraqi and Afghan wars.
ucf essays
The internal war that occurred over a short period resulted in a genocide. It is estimated that between , and one million people were killed. However, he later apologized for U. The actions of the former president left many questions unanswered. The most pertinent question was why Rwanda was ignored. Marxists argue that the Clinton administration was fully aware of the genocide, but it was just ignored and was not really in U. had more interest in Somalia based on its strategic nature and rich oil deposits, as analysts affirm. Before the Somalia civil war began, the U. had already sent its oil companies into the country to explore if it had oil deposits.
Many industry sources believed that the land could have oil and natural gas. However, unrests made the oil companies to leave because it was too dangerous operating in the country. According to Kolko , state actors are puppets of the capitalist class. In , the U. made a decision to invade Iraq. It has been the longest and most costly war to the country since the Vietnam War. It has cost 1. The Bush administration had three claims why it invaded Iraq. President Bush believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction because he had previously used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. However, nothing significant was discovered. Saddam had ties with the Al Qaeda. However, no evidence has been found to confirm the ties and he even viewed the Al Qaeda as a threat to his regime.
The second claim for the invasion was to bring peace and democracy to Iraqi people. However, nothing really has changed I this regard. Many regions of the country are still unstable and lacking in peace. Before, Iraq was struggling with the war and now with ISIS. In reality, U. plans were to secure oil supplies in the country and put military bases in the Middle East in order to protect its global power. The Marxist economic theory argues that the Iraq war was created by the bourgeoisie to control new markets in the Middle East. The Marxist perspective again shows that the U. had more interests in Iraq therefore finding Saddam was more important than finding Osama Bin Laden because Iraq is an oil-rich country and Saddam was at the time the obstacle.
When Barack Obama was elected, he spoke about peace in the world and the need for more diplomacy. His mission and key undertaking he committed to execute in the first term of his presidency was to end the war in Iraq and initiate deliberations with Iran towards the realization of greater peace in the Middle East. His other mission was to close the detention facility in Guantanamo bay, and reduce oil consumption. He was aware how many troops had been killed and wounded in the Iraqi and Afghan wars. He was also aware of the amount of money the wars had cost American taxpayers Dobson, Despite the diplomatic initiatives, no real change was witnessed in the U.
foreign policy during the Obama administration. The country continued its military interventions across the globe. While Obama withdrew the army from Iraq, he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Despite the war in Iraq being terminated, the USA still has military bases around Europe more than 60 years since the Second World War ended. This shows that the country is not going to leave Iraq and Afghanistan any time soon because it needs to improve and secure its access to oil. According to Gulf Business, Iraq has the fifth largest oil reserves in the world. Despite political disputes, many oil reserves have never been tapped Nagraj, This is what informs their active participation in the creation of peace and flashing out of unfriendly leaders like Saddam Hussein.
Business elites still had influential links with the government regarding the policy. It may be hard to argue against this given that big businesses and corporations usually fund presidential campaigns. Although the former President is often regarded as the most democratic and soft U. president ever, from a Marxism point of view, he had been siding with the rich. It is very important for one to be acquainted with the historical facts about the U. The new trend in the policy that was evident during the American Revolution was a clear shift from non-interventionism which occurred both before and after the First World War. The revolution saw America grow into a world superpower status and gain global hegemony whereby close powerful elites and state actors were the key decision makers.
A paradigm shift of the policy was also evident in the 19th century when a shift was recorded from the realist school of thought to the idealistic viewpoint. The shift was known as the Wilsonian School of International Relations. According to researchers, the U. foreign policy themes were expressed extensively and accorded weight in the farewell address by George Washington. The Farewell address was characterized by undertones and advocacy for a friendly foreign policy framework. The speech was anticipating a policy shift from the hegemonic structure to a more liberal and inclusive one. The key objects of the address on the policy change included the need to observe good faith, observe justice or propagate justice towards all nations, and cultivate peace and harmony without any form of apathy towards some nations.
The former president emphasized the need for the U. to engage with others or adopt a symbiotic relation with other nations globally through passionate attachment. This, he noted, would enhance trade and sharing of ideas among individuals in the nations and that this would be noble for global development. The policies proposed ignited intense deliberations among state actors and eventually became the major driver or basis for the formation of the Federalist Party in The party spearheaded various changes and areas of focus for the U. foreign policy framework. The move helped in replacing the hegemony system with the favorable policies contained in the presidential doctrine. Party politics also shape foreign policy structure in the U. Despite the overall objective remaining the same over the years, how the foreign policies are implemented or acted upon differ based on party affiliation including the ideologies of the president in office.
The dynamics in party politics and changes in the environment influence the approach a government in place would take. For instance, internal and global challenges such as irresponsible gun usage and terrorism that are increasingly affecting the global peace continually contribute in the notable shifts witnessed in the foreign policy. The challenges shape how the U. relates with certain nations and the actions such nations undertake to restore peace and human rights and dignity. For instance, the current government is fighting heavy battle globally. Kolko in his view holds that the US foreign policy is a driver to expand American capitalism abroad and to secure overseas outlets for surplus American production.
The scholar argued that during the Cold War, the U. needed to get rid of its enemies and obstacles in every jurisdiction of interest. The war was not a conflict between Russia and the United States, but was instead an American campaign to dominate the world and reshape it to suit its interests Eubank, He still depicts that American capitalism is repressing the world society. Theoretically, Marxists have strengths and can be very realistic in terms of hidden truths that influence the foreign policy of the United States. It is out of doubt that economic aspects play a key role in the foreign policy. Since , the U. has had power to reshape the world economy Stokes, , p.
The Marxist theory, including Lenin and Kolko perspectives, explains the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed and the truth behind the interventions the U. conducted in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. The theorists believe in a communist society where no one is alienated or exploited. Regarding the U. foreign policy, too much emphasis is put on economic factors. Although economics is an important aspect, keeping democracy standards is also important for sustaining effective foreign policy. It has a little or no relevance to U.
foreign policy today. Secondly, Leninists argue that the U. uses imperialistic policies to expand economy. A notable example often cited in this regard is the invasion of Iraq. However, the larger amount of U. wealth was created domestically as the country has one of the largest industries, for example in agriculture which is one of the top exporters of goods. Noteworthy, there is no single source that can dictate the U. There is more to it than just economics. First, foreign policy as a whole changes from time to time. Second, events that take place in the world play a big role. Foreign policy is impacted by events in international politics. As the events change, the shape of foreign policy changes too.
Although the Marxists argument that the intervention in Iraq was all about oil may sound realistic, and the idea that the U. foreign policy is strongly influenced by big business elites who dictate which way the policy has to go seem true, the arguments could be proven to be false after all. This is because the U. political system has high decentralization, which means that no single candidate can shape policies. Under the U. While specific opinions relating to foreign policy issues have changed, the underlying belief structure remains intact.
Likewise, American exceptionalness remains a central rallying cry with its moral and emotive force used as rationale for American intervention in the Middle East. There is no clearer reaffirmation of the Truman Doctrine than from former President George Walker Bush who clears it the responsibility of the United States, if not its messianic mission to promote freedom worldwide. More recently, the Obama administration maintains the US objective to shape the international order and ensconced within it is justification based on the ingenuity of the American people. American alliance policy is both reflective of ideological divisions and indicative of an intention to maintain centrality in the international order.
Mired in the power struggle that was the Cold War, alliances became a competition for allies and were sought for economic and security interests. As such, the United States constructed an interconnected web of relationships, positioning itself as the centripetal entity. With a confluence of identity and interests, the North Atlantic Treaty enjoined Europe and the United States into a multilateral institution, defending the collective security of Western civilization. Instead, the United States reverted to a hub and spoke structure, a outwork of bilateral alliances with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan amongst others. Without a single common thread, this informal structure has relied on United States security guarantees and more latently, shared economic interests to maintain stability.
Formed under the rubric of anticommunism, by the end of the Cold War an order had emerged built on two pillars — the US dollar and the IIS security umbrella. Though the IIS has lost its reliable satraps from the Cold War era, it continues to hold a unique economic and military presence in East Asia. However, the US is now one of many important layers in a region trending toward deeper multilateral cooperation. Pressure on allies to oppose regional security forums in favor of their US alliance has failed. Coming to grips with this reality necessitated the eschewing of past ideological differences as non-traditional partners, including Vietnam have been sought for bilateral economic ties.
Further, the CSS has implicitly accepted Beijing rising status and conferred upon China the leadership position on some regional issues, principally those of common once such as North Koreans nuclear program. This is not without its realignments, expressly with Taiwan, where the US is involved in a delicate balancing, keen to maintain reputation interests but with a growing desire to engage with China. Despite advancing regionalism, American alliances continue to form the foundation of security and US relations with East Asia. Reinforced by shared political values and the legacy of four decades of cooperation, theCSS had ample reason to preserve it.
Further, US dominance within NATO has subordinated it to a body in service of American interests — preserving the ideologically important transatlantic relationship whilst concealing US actions within a multilateral facade. Absent the Soviet threat and reminiscent of the Truman Doctrine, justifications for expansion fell on defending human rights globally Freaking , Moreover, the abject failure of US nation alluding in Iraq, contrasted with the relative success of Shove sends a clear message that with intensifying global fragmentation, there is no viable alternative to collective action. Given US military supremacy, NATO will remain a desirable coalition for Europeans whilst also serving as an instrument of US interests. Alongside alliances, the Cold War strategy of containment acted as a bulwark to preserve American identity and interests.
Likening the Soviet Union to a bent tree, Keenan argued that sustained counter-pressure over time would allow that tree to grow back in another form. By depicting Ideological adversaries as illegitimate, this oft little room for negotiation until dtenet made possible a limited modus veined. Strategically, containment allowed America to build spheres of influence, managing other powers in a global system under American aegis, creating the prelude to the post-Cold War pas Americana. While often referred to as outmoded, containment remains pervasive in American foreign policy. Yet Caddis argues the Bush Doctrine supplements Cold War containment, retooling it for a geographically unbounded struggle.
Others have argued for a similar reinvigoration of containment to deal with Iran. Recent policy documents confirm this approach; inviting Iran to renounce its ideology, join the international community and Offer engagement with America. The latter offer of engagement demonstrates the experience gained during dtenet is providing logical boundaries for modern containment. At the same time, the ideological basis for containment persists. Evocative of the Cold War reasoning, containment during the War on Terror was envisaged as a process of everyday serialization, policing of the border between the Self and Other. This ideological bifurcation is the unifying idea behind the assertion and legalization of American global hegemony.
Hence contemporary containment, while more reflexive, continues as a mechanism for restricting threats to strategy and identity. As the only power left standing at the end of the Cold War, the IIS sought to complete its objectives from NCSC and cement its dominance. With a universal agenda, — it sought to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment