The International Court of Justice at The Hague in Netherlands is an independent international organization, governed by the Rome Stature. It has directive to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It provides accountability for those culpable of committing atrocities and those who order such crime. Under the rule of law, the ICC provides justice to victims, families and communities of crimes against humanity. The court place a distinguished set of rights to victims, unprecedented in international justice.
I believe that the ICC is very relevant and play a major role in contributing to international justice, peace and stability. The ICC rule to arrest Libya’s president Qaddafi is the first time that the United States and China (both countries are not ICC party) have used their permanent Security Council vote to refer the situation to the ICC for investigation. This exemplifies the general recognition of the importance of the ICC in collective justice.
The biggest challenges that ICC faces is its inability to secure arrests, since it does not have its own police and depends on member states for that task. Also, many countries that are not ICC signatories refuse to help the international community in arresting alleged criminals to face trial. An example is President Bashir of Sudan, who has a warrant arrest and has visited many countries since then, including China. Also, many criticize the ICC because leaders of powerful nations are not being investigated for being linked to such crimes. However, I disagree with that affirmation. We cannot denied justice to some because the international community might not be able to trial all persons who commit crime against humanity. ICC is a relatively new institution that has a potential with time to be a very effective vehicle of international justice.
As US citizens, we should encourage our government to be ICC party and work within the court to reform the necessary provisions to make it effective.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Rwanda and Darfur
The international community has condemned the horrendous crimes against civilian in Rwanda and Darfur and the Security Council admitted their failure in addressing the genocide. President Clinton declared in 1998 in a visit to Kigali “It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror” (1). The UN received harsh criticism for not being able to effectively intervene and prevent millions of deaths in both crises. Lack of political will and support from member states contributed to the UN inability to carry out peacekeeping missions, even with a Security Council approval. It is prudent to affirm after the genocides, with more million casualties in Rwanda alone, that the UN did not fulfill its duties and complete responsibilities to protect the lives of individuals and maintain international peace and security.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Tthe international community ignored its mandate in both conflicts (Rwanda and Darfur). Rwanda’s civil war unfolded under the UN’s key members closed eyes. They refused to admit, regardless of information from the ground that the genocide was occurring. The minority Tutsi and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by the Hutus extremist militias backed by the Hutu government after the Tutsi rebels assassination of Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana . Peacekeeping troops from UNAMIR that were present in the country since the year before were significantly reduced during the conflict due to increasing violence on the ground and only served to help foreigners to leave the country, abandoning the minority to defend themselves on their own. Refugee camps were not properly protected and the killings continued to occur there too. The humanitarian crisis deteriorated quickly the civilians were victimized being brutality tortured, raped, mass murdered resulting in an ethnic cleansing situation. Only after the Rwanda Patriotic Front, the Tutsi rebels gained grounds with their offensive strategy that the genocide came to an end. However, with limited support, the genocide had already claimed almost one million lives. In Sudan, the violence is still part of their daily lives and the ongoing genocide is still occurring. The Sudanese government with President Bashir still in power after the ICC condemned him of crime against humanity, it keep providing arms to Janjaweed militia who in turn increasingly commits atrocious terror and crimes in the Darfur region generating a refuge crises and destabilizing bordering countries. As Susan Rice declared “we (US) have no comprehensive strategy for stopping the killings.”(2)
In my view, peacekeeping forces have an essential role to play in international crises. The UN has legitimacy from the international community in its work to preserve global security and stability and protecting civilians when they are most vulnerable throughout crises. Peacekeeping missions are believed to be the victims’ last hope and resort. This is a huge task and the UN has the possibility to make immense difference whether conflicts will be resolved or not and whether crimes against humanity where citizens’ human rights violations are stopped or not. However, if the UN finds the morally right political will to authorize a peacekeeping mission, it is the responsibility of member states to resource it effectively to obtain positive outcomes. The world cannot afford to revive the situation in Rwanda. We said “no more” after WWII and again after the genocide in Rwanda. However, there are many humanitarian crises happening today where peacekeeping missions are necessary to ensure protection of innocent civilians. Sudan is still very unstable and now the situation in Somalia is critically deteriorating due to the famine and political instability. In Somalia, 29000 children had died so far in the past few months. Developed countries need to drop the rhetoric and provide substantial funds and support for the UNDPKO and comprehensive long term development plan created together with leaders of these countries to be able to avoid human rights crises.
Key influential states in the UN tend to see humanitarian crises through a political lens. That must to be change if the UN wants to fulfill its obligation to guarantee human security. A dose of empathy towards the least protected human citizens would serve good to correct the problems faced by UNDPKO. Good intentions enough do not solve humanitarian crises. Serious commitment to Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding should be a UN priority. Saving innocent civilian lives is morally and ethically the right action by the international community. Nothing should prevent that task to be accomplished whether is race discrimination, how leaders perceive the worth of other people lifes, economic and political interests and neocolonialism. As found in the Lessons from Rwanda, The United Nations and the prevention of Genocide, “Following the Millennium Report, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (set up by the Canadian government) issued a report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect”. The report found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders. It proposed that where a State fails to protect people -- either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness -- the responsibility shifts to the broader international community.”(3)
Notes:
1-) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/03/25/world/main5798.shtml (Text of President Clinton's address to genocide survivors at the airport in Kigali, Rwanda, as provided by the White House)
2-) Rourke, John T. 2010 Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Fifteenth Edition (McGraw-Hill) Page 167
3-) http://www.un.org/preventgenocide/rwanda/responsibility.shtml (Responsibility to Protect)
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Tthe international community ignored its mandate in both conflicts (Rwanda and Darfur). Rwanda’s civil war unfolded under the UN’s key members closed eyes. They refused to admit, regardless of information from the ground that the genocide was occurring. The minority Tutsi and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by the Hutus extremist militias backed by the Hutu government after the Tutsi rebels assassination of Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana . Peacekeeping troops from UNAMIR that were present in the country since the year before were significantly reduced during the conflict due to increasing violence on the ground and only served to help foreigners to leave the country, abandoning the minority to defend themselves on their own. Refugee camps were not properly protected and the killings continued to occur there too. The humanitarian crisis deteriorated quickly the civilians were victimized being brutality tortured, raped, mass murdered resulting in an ethnic cleansing situation. Only after the Rwanda Patriotic Front, the Tutsi rebels gained grounds with their offensive strategy that the genocide came to an end. However, with limited support, the genocide had already claimed almost one million lives. In Sudan, the violence is still part of their daily lives and the ongoing genocide is still occurring. The Sudanese government with President Bashir still in power after the ICC condemned him of crime against humanity, it keep providing arms to Janjaweed militia who in turn increasingly commits atrocious terror and crimes in the Darfur region generating a refuge crises and destabilizing bordering countries. As Susan Rice declared “we (US) have no comprehensive strategy for stopping the killings.”(2)
In my view, peacekeeping forces have an essential role to play in international crises. The UN has legitimacy from the international community in its work to preserve global security and stability and protecting civilians when they are most vulnerable throughout crises. Peacekeeping missions are believed to be the victims’ last hope and resort. This is a huge task and the UN has the possibility to make immense difference whether conflicts will be resolved or not and whether crimes against humanity where citizens’ human rights violations are stopped or not. However, if the UN finds the morally right political will to authorize a peacekeeping mission, it is the responsibility of member states to resource it effectively to obtain positive outcomes. The world cannot afford to revive the situation in Rwanda. We said “no more” after WWII and again after the genocide in Rwanda. However, there are many humanitarian crises happening today where peacekeeping missions are necessary to ensure protection of innocent civilians. Sudan is still very unstable and now the situation in Somalia is critically deteriorating due to the famine and political instability. In Somalia, 29000 children had died so far in the past few months. Developed countries need to drop the rhetoric and provide substantial funds and support for the UNDPKO and comprehensive long term development plan created together with leaders of these countries to be able to avoid human rights crises.
Key influential states in the UN tend to see humanitarian crises through a political lens. That must to be change if the UN wants to fulfill its obligation to guarantee human security. A dose of empathy towards the least protected human citizens would serve good to correct the problems faced by UNDPKO. Good intentions enough do not solve humanitarian crises. Serious commitment to Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding should be a UN priority. Saving innocent civilian lives is morally and ethically the right action by the international community. Nothing should prevent that task to be accomplished whether is race discrimination, how leaders perceive the worth of other people lifes, economic and political interests and neocolonialism. As found in the Lessons from Rwanda, The United Nations and the prevention of Genocide, “Following the Millennium Report, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (set up by the Canadian government) issued a report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect”. The report found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders. It proposed that where a State fails to protect people -- either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness -- the responsibility shifts to the broader international community.”(3)
Notes:
1-) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/03/25/world/main5798.shtml (Text of President Clinton's address to genocide survivors at the airport in Kigali, Rwanda, as provided by the White House)
2-) Rourke, John T. 2010 Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Fifteenth Edition (McGraw-Hill) Page 167
3-) http://www.un.org/preventgenocide/rwanda/responsibility.shtml (Responsibility to Protect)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
In the post-Bush Era, America found itself in a world which is defined by the growing economic power of new global challengers such as China and India, the increasing discontent abroad about American uniletarism, the continued existence of Islamic fundamentalism as the chief national security treat and finally a Middle East in turmoil which is weary of American Interventionism in the region. In this context, there are conflictual views about the future of American Foreign Policy. While some scholars find the American international aspiration for global hegemonic leadership dangerous and call for a more “restrained” national security agenda, others urge the US to strengthen frameworks of international cooperation and restore the institutional foundations of US leadership in the world. Still others scholars emphasize the role of morality in the US foreign policy and finally there is a growing concern that the international field might witness an ear of conflict between Western democracies and rising autocratic power such as China and Russia. Which view (or views) do you think provide the most realistic and convincing assessment of the future of American Foreign Policy? Why? Justify answer with specific examples.
Since its birth, American has being engaged in expansion from the original colonies to its continental conquest and its projected influence throughout the globe. From the beginning of last century, America fought many wars and militarily intervened in all corners of the world. As Americans, we see ourselves as the beacon of freedom, the people who were chosen with the mission to spread the Good News that if the world follows our example, peace, democratic freedom and prosperity will prevail. With the election of President Obama in 2008, Americans sent a message to the international community that they were ready for a change. Americans were ready to tell the world that our approach to global leadership would be re-evaluated and the days of military intervention to project our power were counted. The pre-emptive Iraq invasion and the Bush’s administration mismanagement of both wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) had caused Americans great economic and political distress (not to mention the destruction of both countries). It was time for American leadership to re-evaluate its entire foreign policies, the ways we conduct ourselves in the international arena and lead the world in solving social, economical and political issues. It came to time when we as a country had to re-evaluate our commitment to accordance with our means. Obama messages towards American’s engagement in the world brought hope that American were finally going to reverse its years of domination and start acting by what we preached. He would be the determined leader who would concentrate his effort in solving our most important national problems (economic crises, increasing deficit, comprehensive health care reform, better public education, renewable energy to diminish our dependency on foreign oil, etc) mostly caused by actions of his predecessor ambitions around the world. The Bush years taught us an important lesson: military intervention did not make American any safer and the results of use of armed force were very blurred. It was time to reverse the image of a deceitful imperialist empire. However, here we are three years after Obama’s election and still present in chaotic and unstable Iraq, with more troops in Afghanistan, involved in Libya, and Guantanamo still open. In my view, the preponderance of American military power makes it quasi irresistible for us to use military intervention in problems around the world, regardless of whoever is at the white house. As all previous US presidents, Obama too uses “American exceptionalism” to justify and sell to Americans and to the people of the world his intervention abroad. It is going to take serious re-evaluation of our priorities, nationally and internationally in order to correct the tract and show to the world that American does deserve the hegemonic leadership that it has until another power emerge to dispute its role.
With the end of the Cold War, America found them in a position of unchallenged power. Without competition it felt free to act in and outside the international system it had created in order guarantee world peace and stability and protects its own interest. This week’s IMF projection that by 2016 China might became the most prosperous economic power in the world, should give US Administration another wake up call, and re-structure its priorities. We cannot be compelling to act impulsive and foolish to every single disturbance around the world especially when they do not pose any strategic threats and when the international community is so wary of our interventions. We should not over estimate the threat of an American attack since it is clear to us and to the entire whole that whoever attacks us at home will face a certain total destruction.
Thus, the future of Contemporary American Foreign Policy in my view, should entertain a balanced combination of restrain and engagement in a reformulation of the international order to prioritize national security. I believe we are still leaving in a transition period trying to figure out what the post-Cold war world will look like. After reading the different essays of scholars using different theoretical views in Ikenberry American Foreign Policy, I conclude that we are reliving the years between 1943-1947 after the World War II when American leadership was in the process of discerning in establishing its vision of how the world order should look like, who would be her allies and trying to define its challenges in order to create a comprehensive policy. So the question is should we continue with the same order or would American transform the order it created entirely? I do not think that there is an answer right now. Lilia Shevtsova states “it is not the quantity of action that counts, but the quality of the vision guiding those actions. The world needs a bold but viable new framework to deal with new global threats, and America in particular needs to reinvigorate the idea of liberal democracy and link it to the idea of global justice” (2) . However based on the past few years’ mistakes, I feel that American should move away from preemptive action mentality but at the same time engage in areas where an outside balancer is necessary to maintain regional order (Asia and Middle East) but using subtle tactics. A priority should be in place in order to bring legitimacy to International Organizations. This will require Americans leadership and also its commitment to abide by the rules of law and of the system. A serious reform of the strategy need to be based on reality of current world issues to combat the new challenges to global instability. A policy to include re-formulation of the Security Council by bringing new emerging powers in the decision making process where these countries will feel that there is a fair share of influence is of extreme importance. Leadership in Washington (both Congress and presidency) needs to move away from the mentality Cold War year. Even thought the threat of a terroristic attack is and will be present in the years to come, it cannot be the fundamental preoccupation of American national security and driver of our foreign policy strategy. Our insistence in intimidating to use military intervention in the Middle East will only exacerbate the threat. As Pose state in his The Case for Restraint “American is not nearly as powerful as it thinks it is, and therefore is unlikely to succeed in its ambitions plans to transform global politics through a hyper-activist policy.”(1) We need to review and renew our commitments to protect our allies in order to maintain our influential power but also to restore unstable regional orders. Instability in Asia (an exacerbated tension between China, Japan and Russia) or in Middle East (between Egypt, Israel, Syria) would have catastrophic results. As the invasion of Iraq showed us that military intervention to remove authoritarian government will not miracly transform a society into a working democracy.
If America wants to keep her hegemony in order to defend her interest, she needs to seriously try to reverse the Anti-Americanism sentiment in the world but especially from its most importantly allies. Also, the state Department needs to create programs of public diplomacy in countries where anti-Americanism sentiments are fervent. Humanitarian aid, social projects thru NGOs would help to send the message that Americans really desire to lead the world into prosperity. It would also take a re-evaluation of our most criticized commitments. It needs to get though with Israel not by cutting aid overnight, but by exercising its power and demand end of Israel occupation in Palestinian areas. It is important that we maintain our agenda in promoting our ideals: defending the protection of human rights, the support of civil society, freedom of speech and flow of information, the rules of law to all countries, especially in countries that considered our allies yet are ruled but government who practice the opposite (exempla Saudi Arabia).
It is in only welcoming the sharing of responsibility in the world leadership that United States will be able to achieve the vision of its Founding Fathers to create a world of peace and prosperity based on American creeds of freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011) Pages (1) 552 and (571)
Question 2
American foreign policy often appears to be an arena of conflict between the domestic and international forces. In the domestic realm, America confronts the corporate interests which call for greater space for economic issues in the US foreign policy, while the policy preferences of the mass public is an important concern for American foreign policy making in terms of providing the foreign policy choices with political legitimacy. The international system, on the other hand, because of its anarchic nature, imposes a certain type of behavior upon states which is defined primarily by self-help, safeguarding national security and power maximization. How do you evaluate the interaction of these forces in shaping the US foreign policy? In the light of your knowledge on US foreign policy choices throughout its history, do you see any pattern that prioritizes either of the forces or do you think that US foreign policy reflects more a mixture of the two? Justify your answer with specific examples.
I believe that American Foreign Policy is influenced by several forces (national and international) which shape the process of making and executing international relations. A mixture of the two forces worked and still works simultaneous in shaping policy throughout history. Nationally, scholars, the media, interest groups, public, policymakers, business leaders, and leaders influence directly or indirectly the development of policy. International developments also influence policies that are shaped and adapted in reaction to current affairs. Realistic scholars would argue that because the public do not have sufficient knowledge to understand the international arena, the democratic process (since leaders will have to comply with public demands in other to be re-elected) affect the quality of policies and suffer from efficiency. The Kioto Protocol is an example of problems where interest group can negatively prevent and influence the US leadership to approve measurements towards policies that would benefit the international community. Business corporations also influence policy makers by supporting or not their campaign with financial resources. In Business Versus Public Influence in US Foreign Policy, Lawrence R Jacobs and Benjamin Page assert “business has a strong consistent and at times lopsided influence upon US foreign policy.”
The process of the evolution of the American foreign policy and its national identity has to be analyzed in an historical context of its international relations understanding that its international actions started in the formation of the nation. The origin of US power, ideals and the vision of the projection of its influence globally began with the revolutionary movement. Based on this understanding, I conclude that all actual premises of its foreign policies that proscribe American actions in the international system are consequences of precedent political constructions that were and are based on unyielding traditions and principles from the creation of the nation in the 18th century. These traditions defined past international relations, are defining the current policies and will probably continue to define the future ones. This is not to say that American policies of the 18th century are exactly the same as the policies of today. Thus, it has been shaped and adapted to fit the current national and global challenges and constraints, but the core priorities and goals of its vision and actions have remained true to the American Creed. The belief that the republic is the beacon of freedom and democracy, and the exceptional mission of Americans in the world can be found in speeches of all presidents from George Washington to FDR to Nixon to Bush and now to Obama. To understand why the US maintains its hegemonic leadership, we need to understand the history of the evolution of its power.
In the early years after the independence were marked by a period of the construction of the national identity envisioning its sovereignty recognition and autonomy. Since its birth the Founding Founders had the clarity that its model was created to redeem the world from the old corrupted system of autocracies and European balance of power but the redemption of the world was going to be a long term process. Since its system was just being implemented at home and due to its vulnerability, a policy of isolationism was the most realist way to approach foreign relations. I can draw this conclusion to Kenneth Waltz self-help of the international system where he states that “foreign policies are shaped and constrained by forces of the international system”. America did not have sufficient influential power to intervene in the international arena. However, nations would perceive American exempla of success and they would be influenced by its model. This policy of teaching by exempla was preached by many Presidents including Wilson, Truman, Carter and Clinton. Samuel Huntington states about this premise “Political institutions have reflected these values but have always fallen short of realizing them in a satisfactory manner.” He emphasizes the gap between the ideals and the practice in America policies which is one of the most criticized issues of American power. The US will try to accomplish its messianic mission but always making sure that it accords to its national interest. I do not agree with some scholar that insist on American isolationism is intrinsic in American Foreign Policy. Even when leaders chose to adopt a policy of isolation, there was never total disconnection from the international affairs (in case of the 30’s was a passive engagement.)
As soon as America economic strength developed with the industrial revolution in the late eighteen century and beginning of the nineteen century, Americans were ready to engage the world and expand its frontiers and influences with the ideal of the Manifest Destiny (its duty to propagate its ideals). This is when we see the abandonment of a theory of influence by example to a theory of actual intervention. The Monroe Doctrine established the concept of influence of regional order. Throughout history (Spanish War, Intervention in Cuba in Central America, etc) the Monroe Doctrine was used and adapted by many presidents in order to protect the US interest and the American continent of outside threat including during the cold war and in the post war period. With the decline of European power this period is characterized as a transition of hegemonic power. In this period, we witness the influential power of Business Corporation in relations of the manipulation of tariffs in order to protect their business. After US involvement in World War I and the depression of the 30s marked a period of isolation in order to solve internal social and economic problems. This period is one of the examples about the significant influence of popular pressure on policy creation and actions of leaders. This is democracy working at its best. The mass public with the social crises, demand Congressional action to change interventionist policies and prioritize national agenda. In order to be re-elected, Congress uses its institutional power to deter the presidency tendency to engage in foreign affairs. The mistake was learned later when with the ascension Nazism and Fascism in Europe, a second war was soon to erupt. By the time the US was attacked in Pearl Harbor, the administration already was planning the new international order after the war ended. The US was going to consolidate its leadership in an “informal” imperial power in all corner of the world. Open Door Policy (free trade and open markets) described how “business” in the world would have to be done from now on. Roosevelt’s multilateralism in order to satisfy Wilsonians’ demands to eradicate the European balance of power system was going to create international organizations in order to guarantee global stability, the right of self determination, democracy collective security, free trade, open markets, etc. With FDR death’s Truman started actively engage in building the international order maintained by American power and also by the principles of the institutions. The Cold War brought the containment policy and the idea of fighting the “other”. Americans had an enemy that threatened its ideals: Communism. And it had to be fought at all costs. Huntington declares: “The promotion of American liberty abroad often carries with it the need to expand the power of the American government which in turn conflicts with the domestic values of liberty. These tensions present an inevitable promise of disharmony”. This Soviet threat was exaggerated in many instances in order gain public support for Administration’s policies. Organized labor also shaped the policy of the this period as it propagated the message against the war in Vietnam, against communism, against the defense budget, etc by encouraging voters to punish the leading party. With the end of the Cold War brought the sense of victory by the American model. We still live by this model created after 1945.
The Bush Doctrine, it resurges the primacy of a unilaterism reflect in NSC of 2002. His acute neo-conservative ways of doing business at home and above shocked the world and make serious damage to American image abroad. 9/11 came as a perfect excuse to implement his policy of interventionism for preventive order (which have been contemplated by member of his cabinet since the Reagan years). The Bush Administration engaged in a propaganda campaign in order to acquire legitimacy for his policy. The public, as we all felt the vulnerability of the American power, stood behind his war against terror and Congress reacted authorizing a preemptive attack in Iraq without the authorization of the Security Council. Bush kept us reminding us of the eminent threat of an attack with his constantly color scale threat level. War industry made and is still making huge profits in contracts because of the war in Iraq. However, many lost their lives and our economic suffered huge crises due to war spending.
If American wants to remain the hegemonic leader, she cannot act like authoritarian countries. We need to preach by example. All influential actors of American foreign policies (business, think tanks, leaders, diplomats, liberal, conservatism) should work together to restore stability based on American principles in order to maintain its influence to guarantee its national interest.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011)
Since its birth, American has being engaged in expansion from the original colonies to its continental conquest and its projected influence throughout the globe. From the beginning of last century, America fought many wars and militarily intervened in all corners of the world. As Americans, we see ourselves as the beacon of freedom, the people who were chosen with the mission to spread the Good News that if the world follows our example, peace, democratic freedom and prosperity will prevail. With the election of President Obama in 2008, Americans sent a message to the international community that they were ready for a change. Americans were ready to tell the world that our approach to global leadership would be re-evaluated and the days of military intervention to project our power were counted. The pre-emptive Iraq invasion and the Bush’s administration mismanagement of both wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) had caused Americans great economic and political distress (not to mention the destruction of both countries). It was time for American leadership to re-evaluate its entire foreign policies, the ways we conduct ourselves in the international arena and lead the world in solving social, economical and political issues. It came to time when we as a country had to re-evaluate our commitment to accordance with our means. Obama messages towards American’s engagement in the world brought hope that American were finally going to reverse its years of domination and start acting by what we preached. He would be the determined leader who would concentrate his effort in solving our most important national problems (economic crises, increasing deficit, comprehensive health care reform, better public education, renewable energy to diminish our dependency on foreign oil, etc) mostly caused by actions of his predecessor ambitions around the world. The Bush years taught us an important lesson: military intervention did not make American any safer and the results of use of armed force were very blurred. It was time to reverse the image of a deceitful imperialist empire. However, here we are three years after Obama’s election and still present in chaotic and unstable Iraq, with more troops in Afghanistan, involved in Libya, and Guantanamo still open. In my view, the preponderance of American military power makes it quasi irresistible for us to use military intervention in problems around the world, regardless of whoever is at the white house. As all previous US presidents, Obama too uses “American exceptionalism” to justify and sell to Americans and to the people of the world his intervention abroad. It is going to take serious re-evaluation of our priorities, nationally and internationally in order to correct the tract and show to the world that American does deserve the hegemonic leadership that it has until another power emerge to dispute its role.
With the end of the Cold War, America found them in a position of unchallenged power. Without competition it felt free to act in and outside the international system it had created in order guarantee world peace and stability and protects its own interest. This week’s IMF projection that by 2016 China might became the most prosperous economic power in the world, should give US Administration another wake up call, and re-structure its priorities. We cannot be compelling to act impulsive and foolish to every single disturbance around the world especially when they do not pose any strategic threats and when the international community is so wary of our interventions. We should not over estimate the threat of an American attack since it is clear to us and to the entire whole that whoever attacks us at home will face a certain total destruction.
Thus, the future of Contemporary American Foreign Policy in my view, should entertain a balanced combination of restrain and engagement in a reformulation of the international order to prioritize national security. I believe we are still leaving in a transition period trying to figure out what the post-Cold war world will look like. After reading the different essays of scholars using different theoretical views in Ikenberry American Foreign Policy, I conclude that we are reliving the years between 1943-1947 after the World War II when American leadership was in the process of discerning in establishing its vision of how the world order should look like, who would be her allies and trying to define its challenges in order to create a comprehensive policy. So the question is should we continue with the same order or would American transform the order it created entirely? I do not think that there is an answer right now. Lilia Shevtsova states “it is not the quantity of action that counts, but the quality of the vision guiding those actions. The world needs a bold but viable new framework to deal with new global threats, and America in particular needs to reinvigorate the idea of liberal democracy and link it to the idea of global justice” (2) . However based on the past few years’ mistakes, I feel that American should move away from preemptive action mentality but at the same time engage in areas where an outside balancer is necessary to maintain regional order (Asia and Middle East) but using subtle tactics. A priority should be in place in order to bring legitimacy to International Organizations. This will require Americans leadership and also its commitment to abide by the rules of law and of the system. A serious reform of the strategy need to be based on reality of current world issues to combat the new challenges to global instability. A policy to include re-formulation of the Security Council by bringing new emerging powers in the decision making process where these countries will feel that there is a fair share of influence is of extreme importance. Leadership in Washington (both Congress and presidency) needs to move away from the mentality Cold War year. Even thought the threat of a terroristic attack is and will be present in the years to come, it cannot be the fundamental preoccupation of American national security and driver of our foreign policy strategy. Our insistence in intimidating to use military intervention in the Middle East will only exacerbate the threat. As Pose state in his The Case for Restraint “American is not nearly as powerful as it thinks it is, and therefore is unlikely to succeed in its ambitions plans to transform global politics through a hyper-activist policy.”(1) We need to review and renew our commitments to protect our allies in order to maintain our influential power but also to restore unstable regional orders. Instability in Asia (an exacerbated tension between China, Japan and Russia) or in Middle East (between Egypt, Israel, Syria) would have catastrophic results. As the invasion of Iraq showed us that military intervention to remove authoritarian government will not miracly transform a society into a working democracy.
If America wants to keep her hegemony in order to defend her interest, she needs to seriously try to reverse the Anti-Americanism sentiment in the world but especially from its most importantly allies. Also, the state Department needs to create programs of public diplomacy in countries where anti-Americanism sentiments are fervent. Humanitarian aid, social projects thru NGOs would help to send the message that Americans really desire to lead the world into prosperity. It would also take a re-evaluation of our most criticized commitments. It needs to get though with Israel not by cutting aid overnight, but by exercising its power and demand end of Israel occupation in Palestinian areas. It is important that we maintain our agenda in promoting our ideals: defending the protection of human rights, the support of civil society, freedom of speech and flow of information, the rules of law to all countries, especially in countries that considered our allies yet are ruled but government who practice the opposite (exempla Saudi Arabia).
It is in only welcoming the sharing of responsibility in the world leadership that United States will be able to achieve the vision of its Founding Fathers to create a world of peace and prosperity based on American creeds of freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011) Pages (1) 552 and (571)
Question 2
American foreign policy often appears to be an arena of conflict between the domestic and international forces. In the domestic realm, America confronts the corporate interests which call for greater space for economic issues in the US foreign policy, while the policy preferences of the mass public is an important concern for American foreign policy making in terms of providing the foreign policy choices with political legitimacy. The international system, on the other hand, because of its anarchic nature, imposes a certain type of behavior upon states which is defined primarily by self-help, safeguarding national security and power maximization. How do you evaluate the interaction of these forces in shaping the US foreign policy? In the light of your knowledge on US foreign policy choices throughout its history, do you see any pattern that prioritizes either of the forces or do you think that US foreign policy reflects more a mixture of the two? Justify your answer with specific examples.
I believe that American Foreign Policy is influenced by several forces (national and international) which shape the process of making and executing international relations. A mixture of the two forces worked and still works simultaneous in shaping policy throughout history. Nationally, scholars, the media, interest groups, public, policymakers, business leaders, and leaders influence directly or indirectly the development of policy. International developments also influence policies that are shaped and adapted in reaction to current affairs. Realistic scholars would argue that because the public do not have sufficient knowledge to understand the international arena, the democratic process (since leaders will have to comply with public demands in other to be re-elected) affect the quality of policies and suffer from efficiency. The Kioto Protocol is an example of problems where interest group can negatively prevent and influence the US leadership to approve measurements towards policies that would benefit the international community. Business corporations also influence policy makers by supporting or not their campaign with financial resources. In Business Versus Public Influence in US Foreign Policy, Lawrence R Jacobs and Benjamin Page assert “business has a strong consistent and at times lopsided influence upon US foreign policy.”
The process of the evolution of the American foreign policy and its national identity has to be analyzed in an historical context of its international relations understanding that its international actions started in the formation of the nation. The origin of US power, ideals and the vision of the projection of its influence globally began with the revolutionary movement. Based on this understanding, I conclude that all actual premises of its foreign policies that proscribe American actions in the international system are consequences of precedent political constructions that were and are based on unyielding traditions and principles from the creation of the nation in the 18th century. These traditions defined past international relations, are defining the current policies and will probably continue to define the future ones. This is not to say that American policies of the 18th century are exactly the same as the policies of today. Thus, it has been shaped and adapted to fit the current national and global challenges and constraints, but the core priorities and goals of its vision and actions have remained true to the American Creed. The belief that the republic is the beacon of freedom and democracy, and the exceptional mission of Americans in the world can be found in speeches of all presidents from George Washington to FDR to Nixon to Bush and now to Obama. To understand why the US maintains its hegemonic leadership, we need to understand the history of the evolution of its power.
In the early years after the independence were marked by a period of the construction of the national identity envisioning its sovereignty recognition and autonomy. Since its birth the Founding Founders had the clarity that its model was created to redeem the world from the old corrupted system of autocracies and European balance of power but the redemption of the world was going to be a long term process. Since its system was just being implemented at home and due to its vulnerability, a policy of isolationism was the most realist way to approach foreign relations. I can draw this conclusion to Kenneth Waltz self-help of the international system where he states that “foreign policies are shaped and constrained by forces of the international system”. America did not have sufficient influential power to intervene in the international arena. However, nations would perceive American exempla of success and they would be influenced by its model. This policy of teaching by exempla was preached by many Presidents including Wilson, Truman, Carter and Clinton. Samuel Huntington states about this premise “Political institutions have reflected these values but have always fallen short of realizing them in a satisfactory manner.” He emphasizes the gap between the ideals and the practice in America policies which is one of the most criticized issues of American power. The US will try to accomplish its messianic mission but always making sure that it accords to its national interest. I do not agree with some scholar that insist on American isolationism is intrinsic in American Foreign Policy. Even when leaders chose to adopt a policy of isolation, there was never total disconnection from the international affairs (in case of the 30’s was a passive engagement.)
As soon as America economic strength developed with the industrial revolution in the late eighteen century and beginning of the nineteen century, Americans were ready to engage the world and expand its frontiers and influences with the ideal of the Manifest Destiny (its duty to propagate its ideals). This is when we see the abandonment of a theory of influence by example to a theory of actual intervention. The Monroe Doctrine established the concept of influence of regional order. Throughout history (Spanish War, Intervention in Cuba in Central America, etc) the Monroe Doctrine was used and adapted by many presidents in order to protect the US interest and the American continent of outside threat including during the cold war and in the post war period. With the decline of European power this period is characterized as a transition of hegemonic power. In this period, we witness the influential power of Business Corporation in relations of the manipulation of tariffs in order to protect their business. After US involvement in World War I and the depression of the 30s marked a period of isolation in order to solve internal social and economic problems. This period is one of the examples about the significant influence of popular pressure on policy creation and actions of leaders. This is democracy working at its best. The mass public with the social crises, demand Congressional action to change interventionist policies and prioritize national agenda. In order to be re-elected, Congress uses its institutional power to deter the presidency tendency to engage in foreign affairs. The mistake was learned later when with the ascension Nazism and Fascism in Europe, a second war was soon to erupt. By the time the US was attacked in Pearl Harbor, the administration already was planning the new international order after the war ended. The US was going to consolidate its leadership in an “informal” imperial power in all corner of the world. Open Door Policy (free trade and open markets) described how “business” in the world would have to be done from now on. Roosevelt’s multilateralism in order to satisfy Wilsonians’ demands to eradicate the European balance of power system was going to create international organizations in order to guarantee global stability, the right of self determination, democracy collective security, free trade, open markets, etc. With FDR death’s Truman started actively engage in building the international order maintained by American power and also by the principles of the institutions. The Cold War brought the containment policy and the idea of fighting the “other”. Americans had an enemy that threatened its ideals: Communism. And it had to be fought at all costs. Huntington declares: “The promotion of American liberty abroad often carries with it the need to expand the power of the American government which in turn conflicts with the domestic values of liberty. These tensions present an inevitable promise of disharmony”. This Soviet threat was exaggerated in many instances in order gain public support for Administration’s policies. Organized labor also shaped the policy of the this period as it propagated the message against the war in Vietnam, against communism, against the defense budget, etc by encouraging voters to punish the leading party. With the end of the Cold War brought the sense of victory by the American model. We still live by this model created after 1945.
The Bush Doctrine, it resurges the primacy of a unilaterism reflect in NSC of 2002. His acute neo-conservative ways of doing business at home and above shocked the world and make serious damage to American image abroad. 9/11 came as a perfect excuse to implement his policy of interventionism for preventive order (which have been contemplated by member of his cabinet since the Reagan years). The Bush Administration engaged in a propaganda campaign in order to acquire legitimacy for his policy. The public, as we all felt the vulnerability of the American power, stood behind his war against terror and Congress reacted authorizing a preemptive attack in Iraq without the authorization of the Security Council. Bush kept us reminding us of the eminent threat of an attack with his constantly color scale threat level. War industry made and is still making huge profits in contracts because of the war in Iraq. However, many lost their lives and our economic suffered huge crises due to war spending.
If American wants to remain the hegemonic leader, she cannot act like authoritarian countries. We need to preach by example. All influential actors of American foreign policies (business, think tanks, leaders, diplomats, liberal, conservatism) should work together to restore stability based on American principles in order to maintain its influence to guarantee its national interest.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011)
Friday, April 1, 2011
Dominance of American culture
Worldwide spread and dominance of American culture is seen as one of the most controversial aspects of globalization. How do you approach the fears - especially on the part of the countries such as China, France and the wider Middle East - that global culture may become too Americanized, destroying other cultural, economic and religious traditions? Do you agree with Iriye's interpretation of the state of affairs from 1913 to 1945 which he sees as mainly based on the actions of the US as a major actor affecting the outside world? What kind of challenges (in cultural terms), if any, US had to face since its globalizing role in the aftermath of WWI? Do you think that those challenges have shaped the US as well or the so-called "globalizing" of America has remained to be a "unidirectional" process?
I absolute concur with Iriye that Americanization (spread of American principles, values and way of life) is an unquestionable phenomenon which is predisposed to increase as the world becomes more and more connected (globalization). Recent world uprisings and revolutions are evidences that American principles of freedom, democracy and human rights are being aspired throughout the world, especially after the media revolution and the increase of the use of the internet and the social media.
The American culture is also transmitted to the world through mass media communications including movies, tv channels and music dictating a model of life to be followed, influencing the way people dress, eat, think, buy, listen. Anyone who is fortunate enough to have travel around the world can notice that McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Coca Cola and many other American multinationals are spread through countries and doing very well financially. An example is fast food restaurants which usually offer inexpensive unhealthy highly processed foods and are considered to have negative influence in countries with cultures that historically have consumed healthy foods, causing increase of obesity and cardiovascular diseases or destroying local restaurants that cannot compete with prices.
In my opinion, whether the influence come from US or any other power that might emerge in the world arena, governments should accept that the world is connected (globalization is here to stay) and that it is only in educating its people that they will be able to evaluate foreign influences and make healthy choices for their lives and for future generations. China, France and others should encourage their population to ask questions like, is eating fast food really the best option for my children? Up to what point will these influences damage my national identity? Suppressing foreign influences through censorship is in my view wrong and a failed approach since it will only make people more curious.
I do agree with Iriye that state affairs from 1913 to 1945 were based on the actions of the US as a major actor that affected the outside world. And thus, globalization is a two-way phenomenon, also affecting the US. With the spread of Americanization, people will feel compelled to migrate to the US in search for the American Dream. Thus, US is a country that was made from immigrants by default. However, as we witness all the debate behind immigration issues (regardless of which side you agree) it is notable that the majority of immigrants and minorities are marginalized and isolated causing social problems (as poverty).
Other aspect that present challenge is the corporate capitalism (we call it in Brazil, the American wild capitalism) which will glorify profits over all costs (over environmental preservation, labor laws, etc). This translates in the idea that as long as money is coming in happiness will follow. Thus, the US assume a image of double standards since it fights for human rights but close their eyes to factories overseas that manufacture their inventions at a cheap cost because they abuse employees and degrade the environment. This only increase anti-American sentiments abroad.
Another challenge is terrorism and extremists groups that use Americanization as threat of destroying people’s culture and especially religion. An example is Al Qaida agenda of implying that the West (mainly the US) is anti-Islam. This week hearings on radicalization of the Muslim community promoted by Rep. King is precisely what extremists groups would use as propaganda against Americans. They will use the media reports about the hearings to prove that the US is after their religion and demand reactionary attacks against us (via videos or the internet). That in return will cause that US step up in security measurements in other to prevent attacks provoking limitation of our privacy rights.
I absolute concur with Iriye that Americanization (spread of American principles, values and way of life) is an unquestionable phenomenon which is predisposed to increase as the world becomes more and more connected (globalization). Recent world uprisings and revolutions are evidences that American principles of freedom, democracy and human rights are being aspired throughout the world, especially after the media revolution and the increase of the use of the internet and the social media.
The American culture is also transmitted to the world through mass media communications including movies, tv channels and music dictating a model of life to be followed, influencing the way people dress, eat, think, buy, listen. Anyone who is fortunate enough to have travel around the world can notice that McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Coca Cola and many other American multinationals are spread through countries and doing very well financially. An example is fast food restaurants which usually offer inexpensive unhealthy highly processed foods and are considered to have negative influence in countries with cultures that historically have consumed healthy foods, causing increase of obesity and cardiovascular diseases or destroying local restaurants that cannot compete with prices.
In my opinion, whether the influence come from US or any other power that might emerge in the world arena, governments should accept that the world is connected (globalization is here to stay) and that it is only in educating its people that they will be able to evaluate foreign influences and make healthy choices for their lives and for future generations. China, France and others should encourage their population to ask questions like, is eating fast food really the best option for my children? Up to what point will these influences damage my national identity? Suppressing foreign influences through censorship is in my view wrong and a failed approach since it will only make people more curious.
I do agree with Iriye that state affairs from 1913 to 1945 were based on the actions of the US as a major actor that affected the outside world. And thus, globalization is a two-way phenomenon, also affecting the US. With the spread of Americanization, people will feel compelled to migrate to the US in search for the American Dream. Thus, US is a country that was made from immigrants by default. However, as we witness all the debate behind immigration issues (regardless of which side you agree) it is notable that the majority of immigrants and minorities are marginalized and isolated causing social problems (as poverty).
Other aspect that present challenge is the corporate capitalism (we call it in Brazil, the American wild capitalism) which will glorify profits over all costs (over environmental preservation, labor laws, etc). This translates in the idea that as long as money is coming in happiness will follow. Thus, the US assume a image of double standards since it fights for human rights but close their eyes to factories overseas that manufacture their inventions at a cheap cost because they abuse employees and degrade the environment. This only increase anti-American sentiments abroad.
Another challenge is terrorism and extremists groups that use Americanization as threat of destroying people’s culture and especially religion. An example is Al Qaida agenda of implying that the West (mainly the US) is anti-Islam. This week hearings on radicalization of the Muslim community promoted by Rep. King is precisely what extremists groups would use as propaganda against Americans. They will use the media reports about the hearings to prove that the US is after their religion and demand reactionary attacks against us (via videos or the internet). That in return will cause that US step up in security measurements in other to prevent attacks provoking limitation of our privacy rights.
American expansionism
Perkins was celebrating "American expansionism" on the grounds that it was an important component of US foreign policy on its way to become an empire. LaFeber, on the other hand, approaches American interventionism as a source of disorder and instability in affected lands. How would you evaluate American interventionism in the Middle East in general, and in the context of the recent revolutionary movements in Egytp and Tunisia in particular? LaFeber thinks the US was a determinative force in helping to trigger 19th century revolutions in Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua and elsewhere. Do you think that the US, through its policies in the region, has played a similar role in the Middle East too throughout the 20th century?
In my view, the United States has used the same Interventionist policies applied to the Middle East in the 20th century as it did to Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama and elsewhere else.
In regards to foreign policy, American politicians prioritized national interest (strategic, security and economic) over fundamental ideals we stand for as order, democracy and liberty. The US continues to support regimes that are tyrannical, corrupt and unpopular, closing their eyes to the oppression of millions of people as long as those governments are pro-American cooperating with US demands. These policies send a very hypocritical image to the world especially when the US claims to be the most important advocate of human rights in the international arena. This double standard just helps to increase anti American sentiments throughout the Middle East.
The US continues to create foreign policies which reflect the Cold War years. These policies were created with the idea that the “ends” justifies the “means”. The best example I can think of is Saddam Hussein, who was first an important ally to the US when he was engaged in war with Iran. Saddam helped to keep the Islamist revolutionaries occupied avoiding the revolution model to be spread throughout the Muslim world (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). It all changed when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, which was not a country that posed any treat to US interests. Suddenly Saddam became the villain and after the US got him out of Kuwait, the US did not do much to overthrow him from power. Then, when the W.G. Bush come to power, he found “reasons” to take Saddam out of power and generated a war that depleted our economy, lost many innocents lives and destroyed Iraq infrastructure.
In my view the US is indirectly responsible for the latest uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Arab world because of its continuous support for oppressive corrupt regimes in the name of region stability. Murabak, named one of the most important US ally in the region in the war against terrorism, led an oppressive regime. Ironically, the Egyptians triumphant revolution demanded to obtain the dreamed democracy preached by the Americans. The US, in the beginning of the uprisings, decided to practice omission and only after the clashes escalated that the Obama Administration voiced that Egyptian government should hear the requests of its people. I think these events in Tunisia and Egypt teach us that we should respect and appreciate movements within countries and we should stay away from wanting to impose changes from outside. These movements started from within against pro-western leaders without any anti-westerner or anti-imperialist characteristics.
In my view, the United States has used the same Interventionist policies applied to the Middle East in the 20th century as it did to Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama and elsewhere else.
In regards to foreign policy, American politicians prioritized national interest (strategic, security and economic) over fundamental ideals we stand for as order, democracy and liberty. The US continues to support regimes that are tyrannical, corrupt and unpopular, closing their eyes to the oppression of millions of people as long as those governments are pro-American cooperating with US demands. These policies send a very hypocritical image to the world especially when the US claims to be the most important advocate of human rights in the international arena. This double standard just helps to increase anti American sentiments throughout the Middle East.
The US continues to create foreign policies which reflect the Cold War years. These policies were created with the idea that the “ends” justifies the “means”. The best example I can think of is Saddam Hussein, who was first an important ally to the US when he was engaged in war with Iran. Saddam helped to keep the Islamist revolutionaries occupied avoiding the revolution model to be spread throughout the Muslim world (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). It all changed when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, which was not a country that posed any treat to US interests. Suddenly Saddam became the villain and after the US got him out of Kuwait, the US did not do much to overthrow him from power. Then, when the W.G. Bush come to power, he found “reasons” to take Saddam out of power and generated a war that depleted our economy, lost many innocents lives and destroyed Iraq infrastructure.
In my view the US is indirectly responsible for the latest uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Arab world because of its continuous support for oppressive corrupt regimes in the name of region stability. Murabak, named one of the most important US ally in the region in the war against terrorism, led an oppressive regime. Ironically, the Egyptians triumphant revolution demanded to obtain the dreamed democracy preached by the Americans. The US, in the beginning of the uprisings, decided to practice omission and only after the clashes escalated that the Obama Administration voiced that Egyptian government should hear the requests of its people. I think these events in Tunisia and Egypt teach us that we should respect and appreciate movements within countries and we should stay away from wanting to impose changes from outside. These movements started from within against pro-western leaders without any anti-westerner or anti-imperialist characteristics.
AMERICAN EMPIRE
Perkins appears to have a celebratory tone in his view of the role of the US in the world (you may challenge that) and provides us with a detailed survey of how it was transformed into a republican nation and extended into a continental "empire" as he calls it. Given his discussion on the origins of the American pattern of behavior, do you think that the US still sustains the "empire" in the postmodern world especially in the face of the challenges posed by other major economic and political actors emerging onto the world scene such as China, India, Japan, and possibly the EU?
I absolutely concur that the United States sustains the “empire” in the post modern world even though countries such as China, India, Japan and EU are emerging onto the world scene. Perkins “glorious” account of the birth of the republic and its first decades was very informative pointing out that America was born from principles of liberty, ambitious economic prosperity (thus prioritizing trade and expansionism) and use of diplomacy to defend national interests. The Founding Fathers created a governing system that would correct the dreadful wrongs done by European monarchies and it would become the model of government the world should exercise. The Republic was designed to empower its people with the ability to write their own destiny. Foreign Policy was a crucial part of the revolution and it proved to be essential tool in order to demand acceptance and respect from Europe. The United State would only be valued as an International player if other dominant nations perceived its influential power. Nationalism was the force that kept the Union together and is still the force that helps Americans to maintain the status as “superpower”. Americans believe in their governing institutions and stand by its policies and actions. Today, the United States has the largest economy; the most advanced military system; prominently influences international policies and major global debates; in my opinion, all these major achievements no other single country is close from accomplishing.
I finish with a quote from Pres. Obama 2011 State of Union speech, to conclude that the future of the American “empire” is really in the hands of its own people:
“So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
The future is ours to win.”
Note:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
I absolutely concur that the United States sustains the “empire” in the post modern world even though countries such as China, India, Japan and EU are emerging onto the world scene. Perkins “glorious” account of the birth of the republic and its first decades was very informative pointing out that America was born from principles of liberty, ambitious economic prosperity (thus prioritizing trade and expansionism) and use of diplomacy to defend national interests. The Founding Fathers created a governing system that would correct the dreadful wrongs done by European monarchies and it would become the model of government the world should exercise. The Republic was designed to empower its people with the ability to write their own destiny. Foreign Policy was a crucial part of the revolution and it proved to be essential tool in order to demand acceptance and respect from Europe. The United State would only be valued as an International player if other dominant nations perceived its influential power. Nationalism was the force that kept the Union together and is still the force that helps Americans to maintain the status as “superpower”. Americans believe in their governing institutions and stand by its policies and actions. Today, the United States has the largest economy; the most advanced military system; prominently influences international policies and major global debates; in my opinion, all these major achievements no other single country is close from accomplishing.
I finish with a quote from Pres. Obama 2011 State of Union speech, to conclude that the future of the American “empire” is really in the hands of its own people:
“So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
The future is ours to win.”
Note:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
Does NATO functions as a useful tool for the US in order to continue to promote its values and principles?
In my opinion, NATO is a vital alliance, important for the maintenance of collective security, peace and stability of the world. NATO has become an important political institution advocating its commitment to democratic values with its system of to resolving emerging conflicts through its practice of consensus ensuring peace. NATO has been successful in fulfilling its member’s security over the years. The cost of security would be a burden to “weaker” nations that would not be able to secure themselves individually. This is the reason why I think that the alliance will not come to an end as its members will continue to support it as NATO re-evaluates its goals and its ability to respond to the new enemies, challenges and treats collectively. Another important task of NATO to contribute to its legitimacy is its role in international humanitarian assistance in disaster-stricken areas.
NATO’s expansion to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact (former adversaries) has been controversial as some critics will argue that their admission to the alliance would jeopardize American-Russian relations. However, I believe that in expanding, NATO strengthened the security of its members and partners as it broadened its area of influence and helped these countries to reform and progress towards democratization and modernization contributing to the overall stability of Europe.
I also agree that the US interest and agenda is a very influential force in actions taken by NATO. I also believe that it will always exist a leading force in all organizations and institutions as they are operated by people with its own interest and bias. However, the US has been assumed the role of world leader since World War I and it will continue to act as the leader unless other power assumes its role.
The recent crisis is Libya is an example how NATO continues to play an important role in the international arena as it is the only military organization capable of supporting UN Security Council resolutions.
NATO’s expansion to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact (former adversaries) has been controversial as some critics will argue that their admission to the alliance would jeopardize American-Russian relations. However, I believe that in expanding, NATO strengthened the security of its members and partners as it broadened its area of influence and helped these countries to reform and progress towards democratization and modernization contributing to the overall stability of Europe.
I also agree that the US interest and agenda is a very influential force in actions taken by NATO. I also believe that it will always exist a leading force in all organizations and institutions as they are operated by people with its own interest and bias. However, the US has been assumed the role of world leader since World War I and it will continue to act as the leader unless other power assumes its role.
The recent crisis is Libya is an example how NATO continues to play an important role in the international arena as it is the only military organization capable of supporting UN Security Council resolutions.
America in the Age of Soviet Power
Cohen’s America in the Age of Soviet Power, is a fascinated reading describing the period in which the Cold War occurred and that the United States became a hegemonic world leader. The Americans were able to fully exercise its messianic destine as the propagator of its values in the quest for achieving of a prosperous and peaceful world. Democracy, freedom, free trade and collective defense were principles in which the new world order was going to be constructed. Peace and stability would reign only if these ideals were implemented to all corners of the world. In his book, Cohen describes the American trajectory as it fought to establish its expected role in dominating the international arena demonstrating how US leadership played foreign policies to first and foremost envisioning its own interest from the birth of the Soviet conflict after the end of World War II to the Reagan Administration, shaping the world we live today.
His book begins by explaining how both the US and the USSR fought together to win the battle against the Axis Power and how they became victorious. The war brought destruction among European countries and the US (with all the financial benefits from the war) and Soviet Union emerged as dominant forces of the world politics. The war brought to end European colonialism in the Third Word and many new nations came to exist in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Cohen states regarding the relationship between the Soviet Union and United States during the years after the end of the war to the beginning of the Korean War in 1950 “Each nation (US and USSR) pursued its vision of world order, exploring the possibilities of cooperation in achieving its goals, and testing the limits of the other’s tolerance in pursuit of unshared goals” (P. 1). Both countries understood that with the collapse of Germany, Japan and the decadence of British power, there were new grounds for increasing its influence and interests. The Roosevelt Administration was sure that the moment had came for America to fulfill its messianic mission in creating a world order based on its idealism that would guarantee not only prosperity, peace and stability abroad but also be advantageous to the interest of the United States. Germany and Japan would be prevented to gain power and never again be able to commit the atrocities against the world. The Bretton Woods conference was initiated to establish the post-war monetary system, a liberal international economic order. The Soviets did not fully participated but understood the importance of not creating tensions between them and the west. The results were the creation of IMF and the World Bank aiding the expansion of international trade. The system would assure the long term interest of the US. When Truman assumed presidency after Roosevelt’s death, he understood that Soviet-American cooperation was essential to the new world order. The problem over Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe needed to be addressed maintaining the sense of cooperation left from the Roosevelt-Stalin’s talks. However, Truman could not ignore American’s principles of self-determination and he got tougher with the Soviet leadership that fearfully perceived that American policy had changed. Other problems emerged in the relationship of the two nations right after the war ended. Soviets were eager to receive reconstruction loans that no one in the US was willing to give. Also, there were disagreements on the amount of German’s reparations and the way the US dominated the administration and occupation of Japan. The American public was horrified by the brutal behavior of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. Cohen states “Soviet suspicions angered Americans. American arrogance, bordering on contempt, infuriated the Soviets (P. 25). By 1946, Truman realized that cooperation with the Soviets was not going to be easily achieved and both countries were feeling the threat initiating a “security dilemma” that encouraged both countries to enhance both national security. Other nations also, trying to gain influence in the America, exacerbated this idea of the Soviet threat in order to gain reconstruction aid and military assistance. On the Soviet side, American interest in the reconstruction of Germany was seeing as a betrayal and threat to its security since the latter had invaded the Soviet Union twice and causing great damage and harm. Another area of American concern was the Middle East where Soviets had not yet withdrew its troops from Iran as the West did after the end of the War. As American understood the threat of losing vital Western Europe to communism, the Truman administration launched the “containment” policy. A civil war crises (little known of Soviet involvement) in Greece erupted. As Cohen explains “Their ultimate concern was not Greece, but rather the assertion of American power in the Middle East. The region was of enormous strategic importance in the event of war with the Soviet Union and its oil reserves could not be allowed to fall into unfriendly hands (P. 37). After an address to Congress requesting for aid for Greece and Turkey, the Truman Doctrine was outlined further exacerbating the Soviet threat as a serious challenge to national security to the American public. As Cohen explained in the weak-government paradigm “To focus congressional attention on foreign affairs, and attain their objectives, the president and his retainers may contrive an international crisis… almost always in foreign affairs, a sense of crisis will result in legislative deference to the president, to an enhancement of executive power, to an imperial presidency (P. 251). Therefore the Marshall Plan was created to finance the implementation of Bretton Woods and politically to eradicate the chances of a Soviet influence in Western Europe. In reaction, the Soviet Union created a Cominform to organize Communist activities. Crises increased as West Germany was being reconstructed. The Soviets applying a blockage on West access to Berlin almost provoked the declaration of between the two countries. After Truman successful airlift operations, the Soviets retreated and suspended the blockage. “The confrontation over Berlin changed the nature of the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union” (P. 46). By March of 1948, the European nations afraid of a Soviet military assault signed a defense pact in Brussels and invited the US to join them as they knew they needed its military and economic aid. NATO was signed in 1949. When Americans understood the Soviets were able to test an Atom bomb, the Truman administration had to increase its military power and established the NSC-68, to ensure American supremacy. However both sides understood the danger of an unwinnable war as both countries could be completely destroyed independently from who shoot first.
The Korean War, as Cohen described, “was the most dangerous of the wars on the periphery” (P. 256). Soviet trained Korean troops attacked Koreans troops that were trained by Americans in the south causing a turning point in Soviet-American relationship, as the Soviets did not expect the Americans to intervened (as the US had not intervened in China). However, American leaders understood that it was crucial for American supremacy that an act of aggression to be retaliated (or the inaction could result in the “domino” effect risking the US to lose its influence over all Asia). The Korean War exacerbated the fear of communism in American society, where leaders took advantage of perceived terror to gain support for their agenda, complicating even more the improvement of relations between the US and USSR. This not only resulted in conflicts that drained economic resource but also many lives in the periphery and at home (by military personal fighting wars) were lost for many years to come. These looses sparked an arms race. New American leadership called for tougher anti-Soviet agenda. Eisenhower’s “New Look” called for air and nuclear power. “The cost of conflict became unacceptably high. Aware of the dangers, leaders in both countries began to develop proposals for arms limitation (P. 88).
Kennedy’s administration goals were no different than the previous leader. Khruschev’s hoped that the new US president was going to be more respectful of Soviet policies in the Third World and at the same time send message to Washington that he wanted to reduce tensions. However, soon it was to come the gravest crises of the Cold War, the Soviet missile installation in Cuba. It was a close call for a nuclear war if the Soviets had not understood the seriousness of American retaliation. The graveness of the crises resulted in the both nations to act prudently and work towards the détente. Communication was open to engage in arms reduction agreements.
With the crises and Vietnam, American showed its resolve to fight against communism even if that implied to close its eyes for its anti-imperialism principle. US troops were engaged in the wars very far away from home, in countries which did not posed any threat to American security. “(Vietnam war) example of great-power arrogance and self-deception, of the abuse and dissipation of wealth and power” (P. 147). The 30 years war brought unprecedented misery to Vietnam and even further drained American wealth that accelerated its decline as a hegemonic power. “Defeat in Vietnam was of little consequence, without impact on the strategic balance between the US and its adversaries. Indeed before it ended, the US had taken major strides toward reconciliation with the Soviet Union and China, the very nations Americans had sought to contain by killing and dying in Vietnam” (P. 179). Conflicts resulting from the ideological war between US and USSR were fought all over the periphery in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Central Americans and Caribbean where many more lives were lost. In other to prevent the spread of communism, the US was willing to abandon its commitment to democracy and human rights and supported many totalitarian regime. “Rarely these conflicts threaten the vital interests of either the Soviet Union or the United States. The superpowers simply would not tolerate indigenous challenges to the status quo unless the challenges were likely to align with their side. With less risk of provoking a nuclear exchange, intervention was always tempting” (P. 257). All three administrations (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) spear no costs for their objectives regarding foreign policies causing the destabilization of the monetary system it had created. Germany and Japan came to the rescue entering the world politics once again. The power game that US and USSR play in order to attempt to control the world was coming to an end. The Soviet economy after the costs of conflicts of 60s and 70s were in deep problems and it collapse in the Mid 1980s resulting from “changes in Soviet society, Gorbachev’s reforms, modification of Soviet military doctrine and, more important, Soviet military posture.” (P. 257). The Soviet collapse meant that US could see themselves as victorious in their war against oppressive communist regime. The world was finally free from the red ink but far away from being a peaceful place. However, American impression on the world was here to stay as we see more the more the world looking “culturally” as Uncle Sam had envisioned.
In conclusion, Cohen comprehensive description of the historic context of the Cold War was informative. In my view, he is fair in demonstrating the deceits and achievements of both powers. The US is portrayed in its quest to fulfill its perceived role in leading the world according to its idealism but at the same time these principles could be distorted by the power seeking national politics that played fear games in maneuvering America public option in accordance to elite’s interests. The USSR was portray not a monsters ready to attack the west as it was the image sold to the world, however Cohen does emphasize Lenin and Stalin oppressive regimes that committed atrocities against its own people. The interplay of the two nations is presented as a reactionary game of perpetual sense of danger. Cohen makes you understand the implications of foreign policies in national politics and how the balance of power played were far away from the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is distressing to grasp the ability of the political system in working the system to advance group agendas as we know that history tends to repeat itself.
Notes:
Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume IV, AMERICA in the Age of SOVIET Power, 1945-1991 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
His book begins by explaining how both the US and the USSR fought together to win the battle against the Axis Power and how they became victorious. The war brought destruction among European countries and the US (with all the financial benefits from the war) and Soviet Union emerged as dominant forces of the world politics. The war brought to end European colonialism in the Third Word and many new nations came to exist in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Cohen states regarding the relationship between the Soviet Union and United States during the years after the end of the war to the beginning of the Korean War in 1950 “Each nation (US and USSR) pursued its vision of world order, exploring the possibilities of cooperation in achieving its goals, and testing the limits of the other’s tolerance in pursuit of unshared goals” (P. 1). Both countries understood that with the collapse of Germany, Japan and the decadence of British power, there were new grounds for increasing its influence and interests. The Roosevelt Administration was sure that the moment had came for America to fulfill its messianic mission in creating a world order based on its idealism that would guarantee not only prosperity, peace and stability abroad but also be advantageous to the interest of the United States. Germany and Japan would be prevented to gain power and never again be able to commit the atrocities against the world. The Bretton Woods conference was initiated to establish the post-war monetary system, a liberal international economic order. The Soviets did not fully participated but understood the importance of not creating tensions between them and the west. The results were the creation of IMF and the World Bank aiding the expansion of international trade. The system would assure the long term interest of the US. When Truman assumed presidency after Roosevelt’s death, he understood that Soviet-American cooperation was essential to the new world order. The problem over Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe needed to be addressed maintaining the sense of cooperation left from the Roosevelt-Stalin’s talks. However, Truman could not ignore American’s principles of self-determination and he got tougher with the Soviet leadership that fearfully perceived that American policy had changed. Other problems emerged in the relationship of the two nations right after the war ended. Soviets were eager to receive reconstruction loans that no one in the US was willing to give. Also, there were disagreements on the amount of German’s reparations and the way the US dominated the administration and occupation of Japan. The American public was horrified by the brutal behavior of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. Cohen states “Soviet suspicions angered Americans. American arrogance, bordering on contempt, infuriated the Soviets (P. 25). By 1946, Truman realized that cooperation with the Soviets was not going to be easily achieved and both countries were feeling the threat initiating a “security dilemma” that encouraged both countries to enhance both national security. Other nations also, trying to gain influence in the America, exacerbated this idea of the Soviet threat in order to gain reconstruction aid and military assistance. On the Soviet side, American interest in the reconstruction of Germany was seeing as a betrayal and threat to its security since the latter had invaded the Soviet Union twice and causing great damage and harm. Another area of American concern was the Middle East where Soviets had not yet withdrew its troops from Iran as the West did after the end of the War. As American understood the threat of losing vital Western Europe to communism, the Truman administration launched the “containment” policy. A civil war crises (little known of Soviet involvement) in Greece erupted. As Cohen explains “Their ultimate concern was not Greece, but rather the assertion of American power in the Middle East. The region was of enormous strategic importance in the event of war with the Soviet Union and its oil reserves could not be allowed to fall into unfriendly hands (P. 37). After an address to Congress requesting for aid for Greece and Turkey, the Truman Doctrine was outlined further exacerbating the Soviet threat as a serious challenge to national security to the American public. As Cohen explained in the weak-government paradigm “To focus congressional attention on foreign affairs, and attain their objectives, the president and his retainers may contrive an international crisis… almost always in foreign affairs, a sense of crisis will result in legislative deference to the president, to an enhancement of executive power, to an imperial presidency (P. 251). Therefore the Marshall Plan was created to finance the implementation of Bretton Woods and politically to eradicate the chances of a Soviet influence in Western Europe. In reaction, the Soviet Union created a Cominform to organize Communist activities. Crises increased as West Germany was being reconstructed. The Soviets applying a blockage on West access to Berlin almost provoked the declaration of between the two countries. After Truman successful airlift operations, the Soviets retreated and suspended the blockage. “The confrontation over Berlin changed the nature of the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union” (P. 46). By March of 1948, the European nations afraid of a Soviet military assault signed a defense pact in Brussels and invited the US to join them as they knew they needed its military and economic aid. NATO was signed in 1949. When Americans understood the Soviets were able to test an Atom bomb, the Truman administration had to increase its military power and established the NSC-68, to ensure American supremacy. However both sides understood the danger of an unwinnable war as both countries could be completely destroyed independently from who shoot first.
The Korean War, as Cohen described, “was the most dangerous of the wars on the periphery” (P. 256). Soviet trained Korean troops attacked Koreans troops that were trained by Americans in the south causing a turning point in Soviet-American relationship, as the Soviets did not expect the Americans to intervened (as the US had not intervened in China). However, American leaders understood that it was crucial for American supremacy that an act of aggression to be retaliated (or the inaction could result in the “domino” effect risking the US to lose its influence over all Asia). The Korean War exacerbated the fear of communism in American society, where leaders took advantage of perceived terror to gain support for their agenda, complicating even more the improvement of relations between the US and USSR. This not only resulted in conflicts that drained economic resource but also many lives in the periphery and at home (by military personal fighting wars) were lost for many years to come. These looses sparked an arms race. New American leadership called for tougher anti-Soviet agenda. Eisenhower’s “New Look” called for air and nuclear power. “The cost of conflict became unacceptably high. Aware of the dangers, leaders in both countries began to develop proposals for arms limitation (P. 88).
Kennedy’s administration goals were no different than the previous leader. Khruschev’s hoped that the new US president was going to be more respectful of Soviet policies in the Third World and at the same time send message to Washington that he wanted to reduce tensions. However, soon it was to come the gravest crises of the Cold War, the Soviet missile installation in Cuba. It was a close call for a nuclear war if the Soviets had not understood the seriousness of American retaliation. The graveness of the crises resulted in the both nations to act prudently and work towards the détente. Communication was open to engage in arms reduction agreements.
With the crises and Vietnam, American showed its resolve to fight against communism even if that implied to close its eyes for its anti-imperialism principle. US troops were engaged in the wars very far away from home, in countries which did not posed any threat to American security. “(Vietnam war) example of great-power arrogance and self-deception, of the abuse and dissipation of wealth and power” (P. 147). The 30 years war brought unprecedented misery to Vietnam and even further drained American wealth that accelerated its decline as a hegemonic power. “Defeat in Vietnam was of little consequence, without impact on the strategic balance between the US and its adversaries. Indeed before it ended, the US had taken major strides toward reconciliation with the Soviet Union and China, the very nations Americans had sought to contain by killing and dying in Vietnam” (P. 179). Conflicts resulting from the ideological war between US and USSR were fought all over the periphery in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Central Americans and Caribbean where many more lives were lost. In other to prevent the spread of communism, the US was willing to abandon its commitment to democracy and human rights and supported many totalitarian regime. “Rarely these conflicts threaten the vital interests of either the Soviet Union or the United States. The superpowers simply would not tolerate indigenous challenges to the status quo unless the challenges were likely to align with their side. With less risk of provoking a nuclear exchange, intervention was always tempting” (P. 257). All three administrations (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) spear no costs for their objectives regarding foreign policies causing the destabilization of the monetary system it had created. Germany and Japan came to the rescue entering the world politics once again. The power game that US and USSR play in order to attempt to control the world was coming to an end. The Soviet economy after the costs of conflicts of 60s and 70s were in deep problems and it collapse in the Mid 1980s resulting from “changes in Soviet society, Gorbachev’s reforms, modification of Soviet military doctrine and, more important, Soviet military posture.” (P. 257). The Soviet collapse meant that US could see themselves as victorious in their war against oppressive communist regime. The world was finally free from the red ink but far away from being a peaceful place. However, American impression on the world was here to stay as we see more the more the world looking “culturally” as Uncle Sam had envisioned.
In conclusion, Cohen comprehensive description of the historic context of the Cold War was informative. In my view, he is fair in demonstrating the deceits and achievements of both powers. The US is portrayed in its quest to fulfill its perceived role in leading the world according to its idealism but at the same time these principles could be distorted by the power seeking national politics that played fear games in maneuvering America public option in accordance to elite’s interests. The USSR was portray not a monsters ready to attack the west as it was the image sold to the world, however Cohen does emphasize Lenin and Stalin oppressive regimes that committed atrocities against its own people. The interplay of the two nations is presented as a reactionary game of perpetual sense of danger. Cohen makes you understand the implications of foreign policies in national politics and how the balance of power played were far away from the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is distressing to grasp the ability of the political system in working the system to advance group agendas as we know that history tends to repeat itself.
Notes:
Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume IV, AMERICA in the Age of SOVIET Power, 1945-1991 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
The Globalizing of America, 1913-1945
Globalizing of AMERICA, 1913-1945 is an instructional book. The author Akira Iriye delineates the trajectory of the American diplomatic course in these turbulent years when the world underwent two global wars. It was then that the United States transformed itself into the world’s political, economic, cultural and military leader surpassing Europe’s supremacy in the international arena. He explains that this transformation process gained momentum with the dominant role that the United States played in the construction of the post-war world order which reflected America’s cultural ideals and strategic interests shaping the standards of modern international relations and prescribing the way we create our foreign policies until today. In addition, the book demonstrates a shift the creation process of American foreign policies when they were now being produced in response to world events instead of national state of affairs. Iriye convenes that the phenomenon of globalization of American ideology emerged from this context and it has profoundly changed or as he calls it “Americanized” the world, as it looks at the United States as model of prosperity, liberty and democracy. He concludes that this Americanization of world may bring the opposite effect of what the United States had intended: international relations focusing on the promotion world stability.
The first chapters of the book describe the international system of the beginning of the twenty century which was dominated by European nation states. Iriye described Europe as a divided continent with nation states that were in constant state of war with each other. That caused these nations to be militarily prepared to engage into conflicts. At the same time major important developments helped spread European predominance to the world: The Enlightenment, creation of modern states and the Industrial Revolution. As Europe saw its ability to increase its productivity, they also rationalized the idea that societies were able of infinite development. It is important to understand the occurrences in Europe because it translated in how it was conducting international affairs with other parts of the world. It was in this context that the US first materialized its influence in the international arena. Iriye stated that it was from the refinement Europe’s thought that emerged American ideologies as Republicanism and American Exceptionalism that helped Americans feel part of the western superior world. “There was a cohesiveness in America that could create a sense of nationhood – a nationalism that transcended the factional alignments or ethnic traditions of the citizens and was founded upon a shared consciousness of how the independence have been won. The absence of a serious division was a source of strength for the new nation, perhaps the key to its acceptance as a member of the European-defined community of nations” (P. 5). The American civil war had positive effects in helping the country to understand and value the importance of national unity. That gave the US leadership confidence to adopt and develop a policy of military and colonial expansion thus proving to Europe that America was ready to emerge as a global player. “The globalization of America had begun” (P. 13). The Open Door Policy is an example of how the US envisioned establishing new markets for its exports. It was clear that by helping countries in their development, it would generate new markets for American goods. This shows that the influence of European principles of conquest of power and control was ingrained into the American interventionist policy.
With Pres. Wilson, the priority of international affairs was economic interdependence and peaceful settlement of dispute as demonstrated in his vision for the role of the United States towards the world. As soon as Americans realized that the Great War was eminent, it declared its neutrality status. The first step toward imposing America’s rights was to “remind the great powers that they had an obligation to observe international law in war as in peace” (P. 23). By being neutral the US was still part of the conflict since the states involved in the war had to observe America’s rights. As the war continued and as Americans were profiting from arms selling and loans, the nations in Europe were concluding that the US was having an influential role in the conflict. Also, the increase of American investments abroad helped Asia and Latin America to build their development in order to be able to purchase US exports. America was proving to be a major economic power. That would provide influential power to place the US as a mediator between the belligerents to end the conflict. “America’s strong interest in playing the role of peacemaker was abundantly clear...Europeans were incapable of managing their own and by extension the world’s affairs, and that without some leadership role played by the US, there could be no stable international order” (P. 29). By 1917, the US had assumed its role as the major world power.
In Asia, the US understood the danger of Japanese imperialistic intervention in China which was an important market (the latter saw in the United States an ally who could change the way foreign policies were developed). Europe was too busy dealing with conflict at home and Asia was not its priority. In Latin America “Earlier, interventionism in the region had been justified in the name of the Monroe Doctrine, …Now under Wilson, it was couched in the vocabulary of political reform precisely the language in which the Wilsonian administration was trying to cope with developments in Asia and Europe” (P. 35). The US understood that its role in the construction of a new world order was essential the American prosperity and expansion Wilson public justification for entering in the war was that humanity craved for peace and it is only with democratic government that the stability would be able to survive. “In a major battle in 1917, it seemed as if Germany victory were within reach – unless Americans arrived to prevent it…American participation spelled the defeat of German ambitions” (P. 43).
The League of Nations, as proposed by the US leadership ( in the Fourteen Points speech by Wilson) would have been based in the pillars of democracy, self- determination (peaceful modification), international cooperation and collective security (by arms control), controlled and administrated with a system envisioned on principles of pacifism and Wilsonian idealism. “Perhaps the key was its universalistic character. It spelled out some basic principles that were to define the postwar world order” (P. 47). However, the American leaders were not ready for such action and congress did not approve and the entrance of the US in the league.
The interwar peaceful period (1920-1939) is given an unprecedented importance by Iriye due to contradictions between idealism and realism. After the rejection of the Versailles Treaty, the US supposedly reverted its course and went back to the pre-war isolationism due to several reasons, even though it made strategic alliances (acting not in accordance to the open diplomacy ideal) and increased its military power (though it did comply with disarmament treaties). The peace treaty was getting major disapproval and unpopularity in many countries including Germany, Italy, China, and Russia (the latter ideals clashed with Wilsonian internationalism since the Bolshevik revolution and their particularistic nationalism, anti pluralistic capitalism and antiimperialistic ideals were spreading across Europe and in colonies). In the economic arena, with the help of US, leaders in Europe recognized that “international peace now depended on economic underpinnings” (P. 96). As the US was the leading economic power, it facilitated its leading role in postwar world. Culturally, the US was very effective in exporting its ideals of stability through the peace movement agenda, cultural internationalism (“global trend towards intellectual understanding of war and peace” (P. 106)) and the improvement of life quality by the consumption of its material goods. However, the Great depression, come to change that reality of the 1920 decade since the its capitalistic and democratic policies were question throughout the world as being a failed system. With the international system crumpling the world witness the rise of fascism, communism and totalitarian regimes in Europe and Asia presenting military and ideological threats challenging national and international stability. “For those and other countries that were joining the rank of fascist states, war was taken as a perpetual condition of national and international affair” (P. 134). The early years of the Roosevelt administration still prescribed neutrality and priority to national affairs in order help the economic crises at home. In Latin American, the policy of Good Neighbor thought to comply with non-interventionism, separating the continent from Europe and Asia. By now (1937-38), the US understood that the escalating conflicts by the unified forces of Germany, Italy and Japan had proved the crises in Europe and Asia was interrelated. As the appeasement policy failed, “the Western democracies were put on the defensive. They not only faced the prospect of war against Germany, but were also confronted with the spectacle of a worldwide coalition of antidemocratic powers” (P. 153) forcing the US to reassume its place in the world arena as the rescuer of peace and stability. Administration’s evaluation of use of force to defend nationals was backed by national public opinion since the Panay incident.
In the chapter Road to Pearl Harbor, Iriye explained that by then, Congress authorized the Lend-Lease arms to any country that would help to defend American security, marking the involvement of the US in the war. Since Japan signed a Neutrality pact with Moscow, it decided to engage in a war with the US and thus attacking Pearl Harbor. From there on, the US was the only country involved in the war in all parts of the world and thus proving that it was a determinant in the establishment of the Americanization of the world. “But the way the war came to an end – through Soviet entry into the Pacific war and the US use of atom bombs- suggested that the post war world would be enormously complicated” (P. 21 4).
In conclusion, in only few decades the US was able to become the world’s super power making the best use of international relations to achieve this goal. Iriye account of the period was informative but in my view, lacked description of war the events in order to provide better complete understanding of the foreign policies. That approach could work for scholars who are familiar with historical occurences, but not for undergrad students. I also think that he could have been more explicit in providing information regarding national reactions to different foreign policies during these. In order to fully comprehend the country actions abroad, first you need to understand the national context which will prescribe such actions. He also seemed to positively portray all US actions deemphasizing US eagerness (at all costs) to become major player in the world.
Notes:
- Iriye, Akira The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume III The Globalizing of AMERICA, 1913- 1945 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
The first chapters of the book describe the international system of the beginning of the twenty century which was dominated by European nation states. Iriye described Europe as a divided continent with nation states that were in constant state of war with each other. That caused these nations to be militarily prepared to engage into conflicts. At the same time major important developments helped spread European predominance to the world: The Enlightenment, creation of modern states and the Industrial Revolution. As Europe saw its ability to increase its productivity, they also rationalized the idea that societies were able of infinite development. It is important to understand the occurrences in Europe because it translated in how it was conducting international affairs with other parts of the world. It was in this context that the US first materialized its influence in the international arena. Iriye stated that it was from the refinement Europe’s thought that emerged American ideologies as Republicanism and American Exceptionalism that helped Americans feel part of the western superior world. “There was a cohesiveness in America that could create a sense of nationhood – a nationalism that transcended the factional alignments or ethnic traditions of the citizens and was founded upon a shared consciousness of how the independence have been won. The absence of a serious division was a source of strength for the new nation, perhaps the key to its acceptance as a member of the European-defined community of nations” (P. 5). The American civil war had positive effects in helping the country to understand and value the importance of national unity. That gave the US leadership confidence to adopt and develop a policy of military and colonial expansion thus proving to Europe that America was ready to emerge as a global player. “The globalization of America had begun” (P. 13). The Open Door Policy is an example of how the US envisioned establishing new markets for its exports. It was clear that by helping countries in their development, it would generate new markets for American goods. This shows that the influence of European principles of conquest of power and control was ingrained into the American interventionist policy.
With Pres. Wilson, the priority of international affairs was economic interdependence and peaceful settlement of dispute as demonstrated in his vision for the role of the United States towards the world. As soon as Americans realized that the Great War was eminent, it declared its neutrality status. The first step toward imposing America’s rights was to “remind the great powers that they had an obligation to observe international law in war as in peace” (P. 23). By being neutral the US was still part of the conflict since the states involved in the war had to observe America’s rights. As the war continued and as Americans were profiting from arms selling and loans, the nations in Europe were concluding that the US was having an influential role in the conflict. Also, the increase of American investments abroad helped Asia and Latin America to build their development in order to be able to purchase US exports. America was proving to be a major economic power. That would provide influential power to place the US as a mediator between the belligerents to end the conflict. “America’s strong interest in playing the role of peacemaker was abundantly clear...Europeans were incapable of managing their own and by extension the world’s affairs, and that without some leadership role played by the US, there could be no stable international order” (P. 29). By 1917, the US had assumed its role as the major world power.
In Asia, the US understood the danger of Japanese imperialistic intervention in China which was an important market (the latter saw in the United States an ally who could change the way foreign policies were developed). Europe was too busy dealing with conflict at home and Asia was not its priority. In Latin America “Earlier, interventionism in the region had been justified in the name of the Monroe Doctrine, …Now under Wilson, it was couched in the vocabulary of political reform precisely the language in which the Wilsonian administration was trying to cope with developments in Asia and Europe” (P. 35). The US understood that its role in the construction of a new world order was essential the American prosperity and expansion Wilson public justification for entering in the war was that humanity craved for peace and it is only with democratic government that the stability would be able to survive. “In a major battle in 1917, it seemed as if Germany victory were within reach – unless Americans arrived to prevent it…American participation spelled the defeat of German ambitions” (P. 43).
The League of Nations, as proposed by the US leadership ( in the Fourteen Points speech by Wilson) would have been based in the pillars of democracy, self- determination (peaceful modification), international cooperation and collective security (by arms control), controlled and administrated with a system envisioned on principles of pacifism and Wilsonian idealism. “Perhaps the key was its universalistic character. It spelled out some basic principles that were to define the postwar world order” (P. 47). However, the American leaders were not ready for such action and congress did not approve and the entrance of the US in the league.
The interwar peaceful period (1920-1939) is given an unprecedented importance by Iriye due to contradictions between idealism and realism. After the rejection of the Versailles Treaty, the US supposedly reverted its course and went back to the pre-war isolationism due to several reasons, even though it made strategic alliances (acting not in accordance to the open diplomacy ideal) and increased its military power (though it did comply with disarmament treaties). The peace treaty was getting major disapproval and unpopularity in many countries including Germany, Italy, China, and Russia (the latter ideals clashed with Wilsonian internationalism since the Bolshevik revolution and their particularistic nationalism, anti pluralistic capitalism and antiimperialistic ideals were spreading across Europe and in colonies). In the economic arena, with the help of US, leaders in Europe recognized that “international peace now depended on economic underpinnings” (P. 96). As the US was the leading economic power, it facilitated its leading role in postwar world. Culturally, the US was very effective in exporting its ideals of stability through the peace movement agenda, cultural internationalism (“global trend towards intellectual understanding of war and peace” (P. 106)) and the improvement of life quality by the consumption of its material goods. However, the Great depression, come to change that reality of the 1920 decade since the its capitalistic and democratic policies were question throughout the world as being a failed system. With the international system crumpling the world witness the rise of fascism, communism and totalitarian regimes in Europe and Asia presenting military and ideological threats challenging national and international stability. “For those and other countries that were joining the rank of fascist states, war was taken as a perpetual condition of national and international affair” (P. 134). The early years of the Roosevelt administration still prescribed neutrality and priority to national affairs in order help the economic crises at home. In Latin American, the policy of Good Neighbor thought to comply with non-interventionism, separating the continent from Europe and Asia. By now (1937-38), the US understood that the escalating conflicts by the unified forces of Germany, Italy and Japan had proved the crises in Europe and Asia was interrelated. As the appeasement policy failed, “the Western democracies were put on the defensive. They not only faced the prospect of war against Germany, but were also confronted with the spectacle of a worldwide coalition of antidemocratic powers” (P. 153) forcing the US to reassume its place in the world arena as the rescuer of peace and stability. Administration’s evaluation of use of force to defend nationals was backed by national public opinion since the Panay incident.
In the chapter Road to Pearl Harbor, Iriye explained that by then, Congress authorized the Lend-Lease arms to any country that would help to defend American security, marking the involvement of the US in the war. Since Japan signed a Neutrality pact with Moscow, it decided to engage in a war with the US and thus attacking Pearl Harbor. From there on, the US was the only country involved in the war in all parts of the world and thus proving that it was a determinant in the establishment of the Americanization of the world. “But the way the war came to an end – through Soviet entry into the Pacific war and the US use of atom bombs- suggested that the post war world would be enormously complicated” (P. 21 4).
In conclusion, in only few decades the US was able to become the world’s super power making the best use of international relations to achieve this goal. Iriye account of the period was informative but in my view, lacked description of war the events in order to provide better complete understanding of the foreign policies. That approach could work for scholars who are familiar with historical occurences, but not for undergrad students. I also think that he could have been more explicit in providing information regarding national reactions to different foreign policies during these. In order to fully comprehend the country actions abroad, first you need to understand the national context which will prescribe such actions. He also seemed to positively portray all US actions deemphasizing US eagerness (at all costs) to become major player in the world.
Notes:
- Iriye, Akira The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume III The Globalizing of AMERICA, 1913- 1945 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
LaFeber’s The American Search for Opportunity
The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relation, Volume II, The American Search for Opportunity, written by Walter LaFeber is in my view an instructional and fascinating book that describes the trajectory of the United States foreign relations between the years 1865-1913 when Americans developed foreign policies aiming to open and expand new commercial opportunities in order to create better conditions for the development of the national economy that resulted in the emergency of the United States as a new global power. As this unfolds, instead of promotion of order, liberty and stability abroad, the American foreign policy had unsettling impact in the international affairs. The Second Industrial Revolution was a determinant factor in the development of the American economic growth. Cultural ideals of isolationism, exceptionalism, and racism (white supremacy) shaped the foreign policy. It was during these years that the United States understood the importance of being able to protect commerce by creating an efficient maritime force, which was used to interfere during clashes in the quest for obtaining new markets in the Pacific Ocean, Africa and in Latin America and suppressing nationalist sentiments in the regions. According to LaFerber, the American Executive power was transformed into an imperial presidency with unprecedented ability to use force bypassing Congress approval in other to maintain American interest of increasing its commercial power. It is in analyzing these policies that we are able to better understand current United States foreign relations and come to the conclusion that these fundamental values are still shaping American foreign policy.
LaFeber gives much importance to the Second Industrial Revolution and the redesigned productive system, revealing that it was due to its occurrence that the U.S. became an emergent global power. “From the 1890s on, the nation had emerged as the world’s greatest and most competitive player in the marketplace. Fearful Europeans warned of an “American Invasion” an overwhelming offensive of United States-made goods and multinationals long before they worried about challenges of United States military, political, or cultural power”(Page 21). It was because of the development of a new capitalism and its need for foreign markets that many revolutions were not only supported but sometimes instigated by the United States leadership envisioning enhancement of commercial opportunities. Hypocritically, when ideals of liberty, stability and order ingrained in the Constitution clashed with the quest of profit and market share, the latter usually prevailed in the discernment of the United States action. The restoration of order was only emphasized if opportunity could be first pursued. “Neither Seward nor any other official could ever discover how to extract extensive concessions from weaker nations without ultimately undermining the order, if not sovereignty, of that nation” (Page 19). This proves LaFeber’s disagreeing with the notion that the United States foreign policy is portrayed by many scholars as to aim for order and stability. Isolationism did not mean that the United States would distant themselves of the political activities of the entire world. American isolation was only practiced in the political activities of Europe because Americans understood European foreign policy as intrinsically bad, corrupt and colonialist. “The Unite States did not want to join the European and Japanese quest for landed, colonial empire. American officials wanted only scattered, relatively small areas of land to serve as bases for their necessary commercial expansionism.” (Page 238) With Europe, the United States concentrated on commercial relations distancing itself from political intervention in order not to risk its sovereignty and autonomy. Everywhere else, interventionism, which maintained the United States emergent economic power, was justified by the quest of new commercial opportunities and the exercise of the exceptionalism. The latter was the believe that the United States had a messianic mission (Manifest Destiny) to provide the possibility for the New World to have a better and just political system disseminating democracy, liberty and Christian values. When dealing with Asia, Africa and Latin America, the United States was very much involved in their politics as LaFeber described “American policy played some role in all revolutionary outbreaks (in Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Philippines, Panama, El Salvador, Hawaii and many others) and in most it was a determinative force” ( Page 234). “From Seward to Hay, the United States officials had not hesitated to use bullets when dollars proved inadequate” (Page 216).
Expansionism (secular and religious) was perceived as condition for security and prosperity of the American republic and thus we saw continuous territorial growth of the state. From the initial colonies of the Atlantic east to the conquest of the West continental state and later the “informal” imperial power with the annexation of the Philippines and defeat of Spain in the Cuban independence war. The expansion of the boarders proved that the United States commercial relations had to increase continuously, reaching nations in faraway lands. It was when the United States feared that European nations (Germany, England and France) were going to close his commercial trade with China, that the Open Door policy was created insisting that all countries were to be given equal rights and possibilities throughout the world. China was forced to agree with the trade policies of the U.S. On the other hand, Central and South America was understood to be part of the New World (under the Monroe Doctrine) and a vital strategic position with importance in order to maintain the security of American interests. As soon as the United States felt threatened in the international commercial system, it entered into action using force if necessary in order to defend its interest and thus implementing its interventionist policies. The construction of the Panama Canal is an example as LaFeber states “the canal is the most important subject now connected with commercial growth and progress of the United States…the United States helped trigger a revolt and used the resulting disorder to obtain land for the canal” (Page 74). Missionary groups played a major role in expansion that ultimately influenced the destabilization of East Asia together with the imports of foreign goods.
Another fact that made public acceptance of intervention acceptable was racism. It was usually combined with white paternalistic supremacy. During the intervention in the Philippines, LaFeber stated “ the United States government had shown it could keep African Americans and Indians (and women) in their place at home without the vote, it could do the same with Filipinos” (Page 163). It was part of the culture in America (exemplify in its treatment of native Americans and the segregation of Africa Americans even after emancipation) and it reflected in the United States foreign policy “The consolidation of the continent, training of military force, contradictory feelings about immigrants, and above all, racism not only characterized these late nineteenth-century decades but were central in shaping U.S. foreign policy then and in the new century” (Page 45). Americans had not problem to the annexation of Canada because of the same Anglo-Saxon race, but were not so thrilled to combine the “creoles” of the South into the white nation. The people of the South were better controlled, but not annexed to the Union.
Another important development that came from these years was the appearance of a very strong presidency. LaFeber detailed the nearly open-ended power of post -1898 presidency, as described by the Supreme Court in Inre Neagle “the president’s power was not limited to carrying out Congress’s wishes but extended to enforcing the rights, duties, and obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, our international relations, and all the protection implied by nature of the government under the Constitution” (Page 82). This proved to be right when presidents used military force when it was necessary to preserve and defend American opportunity. “The changing interrelationships of business and foreign policy began to change as well the balance of power within the U.S. governmental system” (Page 42). “Expansion and disorder abroad equaled centralization at home” (Page 177).
In conclusion, LaFeber account of the Foreign Policies in the late nineteen century and beginning of twenty century was very informative explaining in details American ambition in becoming a successful world power and the role of American leadership who took advantage of Europe declining economic situation and independency revolutions throughout the world to expand its commercial aspirations. I would say that this ambition as LaFeber portrayed would go far against fundamental principles proclaimed by the Founding Fathers of America being the beacon of liberty, democracy and justice for all humanity.
LaFeber in my view neglected to develop other factors involving the American Expansionism. It concentrated mostly on the quest for business and commercial trade but barely noticed any other reasons for drive to expansion providing a narrow and homogenic view. He could have developed the concept of America’s cultural imperialism as an ideology and geographic strategic aspirations not tied to commercial trade.
Notes:
- LaFeber, Walter The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume II The American Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
LaFeber gives much importance to the Second Industrial Revolution and the redesigned productive system, revealing that it was due to its occurrence that the U.S. became an emergent global power. “From the 1890s on, the nation had emerged as the world’s greatest and most competitive player in the marketplace. Fearful Europeans warned of an “American Invasion” an overwhelming offensive of United States-made goods and multinationals long before they worried about challenges of United States military, political, or cultural power”(Page 21). It was because of the development of a new capitalism and its need for foreign markets that many revolutions were not only supported but sometimes instigated by the United States leadership envisioning enhancement of commercial opportunities. Hypocritically, when ideals of liberty, stability and order ingrained in the Constitution clashed with the quest of profit and market share, the latter usually prevailed in the discernment of the United States action. The restoration of order was only emphasized if opportunity could be first pursued. “Neither Seward nor any other official could ever discover how to extract extensive concessions from weaker nations without ultimately undermining the order, if not sovereignty, of that nation” (Page 19). This proves LaFeber’s disagreeing with the notion that the United States foreign policy is portrayed by many scholars as to aim for order and stability. Isolationism did not mean that the United States would distant themselves of the political activities of the entire world. American isolation was only practiced in the political activities of Europe because Americans understood European foreign policy as intrinsically bad, corrupt and colonialist. “The Unite States did not want to join the European and Japanese quest for landed, colonial empire. American officials wanted only scattered, relatively small areas of land to serve as bases for their necessary commercial expansionism.” (Page 238) With Europe, the United States concentrated on commercial relations distancing itself from political intervention in order not to risk its sovereignty and autonomy. Everywhere else, interventionism, which maintained the United States emergent economic power, was justified by the quest of new commercial opportunities and the exercise of the exceptionalism. The latter was the believe that the United States had a messianic mission (Manifest Destiny) to provide the possibility for the New World to have a better and just political system disseminating democracy, liberty and Christian values. When dealing with Asia, Africa and Latin America, the United States was very much involved in their politics as LaFeber described “American policy played some role in all revolutionary outbreaks (in Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Philippines, Panama, El Salvador, Hawaii and many others) and in most it was a determinative force” ( Page 234). “From Seward to Hay, the United States officials had not hesitated to use bullets when dollars proved inadequate” (Page 216).
Expansionism (secular and religious) was perceived as condition for security and prosperity of the American republic and thus we saw continuous territorial growth of the state. From the initial colonies of the Atlantic east to the conquest of the West continental state and later the “informal” imperial power with the annexation of the Philippines and defeat of Spain in the Cuban independence war. The expansion of the boarders proved that the United States commercial relations had to increase continuously, reaching nations in faraway lands. It was when the United States feared that European nations (Germany, England and France) were going to close his commercial trade with China, that the Open Door policy was created insisting that all countries were to be given equal rights and possibilities throughout the world. China was forced to agree with the trade policies of the U.S. On the other hand, Central and South America was understood to be part of the New World (under the Monroe Doctrine) and a vital strategic position with importance in order to maintain the security of American interests. As soon as the United States felt threatened in the international commercial system, it entered into action using force if necessary in order to defend its interest and thus implementing its interventionist policies. The construction of the Panama Canal is an example as LaFeber states “the canal is the most important subject now connected with commercial growth and progress of the United States…the United States helped trigger a revolt and used the resulting disorder to obtain land for the canal” (Page 74). Missionary groups played a major role in expansion that ultimately influenced the destabilization of East Asia together with the imports of foreign goods.
Another fact that made public acceptance of intervention acceptable was racism. It was usually combined with white paternalistic supremacy. During the intervention in the Philippines, LaFeber stated “ the United States government had shown it could keep African Americans and Indians (and women) in their place at home without the vote, it could do the same with Filipinos” (Page 163). It was part of the culture in America (exemplify in its treatment of native Americans and the segregation of Africa Americans even after emancipation) and it reflected in the United States foreign policy “The consolidation of the continent, training of military force, contradictory feelings about immigrants, and above all, racism not only characterized these late nineteenth-century decades but were central in shaping U.S. foreign policy then and in the new century” (Page 45). Americans had not problem to the annexation of Canada because of the same Anglo-Saxon race, but were not so thrilled to combine the “creoles” of the South into the white nation. The people of the South were better controlled, but not annexed to the Union.
Another important development that came from these years was the appearance of a very strong presidency. LaFeber detailed the nearly open-ended power of post -1898 presidency, as described by the Supreme Court in Inre Neagle “the president’s power was not limited to carrying out Congress’s wishes but extended to enforcing the rights, duties, and obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, our international relations, and all the protection implied by nature of the government under the Constitution” (Page 82). This proved to be right when presidents used military force when it was necessary to preserve and defend American opportunity. “The changing interrelationships of business and foreign policy began to change as well the balance of power within the U.S. governmental system” (Page 42). “Expansion and disorder abroad equaled centralization at home” (Page 177).
In conclusion, LaFeber account of the Foreign Policies in the late nineteen century and beginning of twenty century was very informative explaining in details American ambition in becoming a successful world power and the role of American leadership who took advantage of Europe declining economic situation and independency revolutions throughout the world to expand its commercial aspirations. I would say that this ambition as LaFeber portrayed would go far against fundamental principles proclaimed by the Founding Fathers of America being the beacon of liberty, democracy and justice for all humanity.
LaFeber in my view neglected to develop other factors involving the American Expansionism. It concentrated mostly on the quest for business and commercial trade but barely noticed any other reasons for drive to expansion providing a narrow and homogenic view. He could have developed the concept of America’s cultural imperialism as an ideology and geographic strategic aspirations not tied to commercial trade.
Notes:
- LaFeber, Walter The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume II The American Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
The Creation of a Republican Empire
Bradford Perkins’ The Creation of a Republican Empire presents an informative account of the history of American foreign policy. He discusses important theories behind the policies used in laying the path to convert the state into what he calls, the American Republican Empire. He focused on the ideals of republicanism, individualism, trade and economic expansionism that shaped international policy debates. Perkins framed his work on proceedings such as the struggles of the American Revolution, the creation of the United States constitution, the effects produced by the European wars, the Monroe Doctrine, the decade of 1840s and its emphasis on expansionism and the Civil War. In just one century, the United States through a well design approach to international relations was able to legitimize its independence and secured commercial trade and its geographical territory. This distinctive model inspired many countries throughout the world to follow its successes. It was because of the vision of the Founding Founders transmitted to and embraced by the nationalistic American people that the United States became a leading country in international relations and major player in the international community today.
American Foreign Policy started to be patterned in the early days of the American Revolution. Since the beginning, Americans were driven by the desire to attain power and wealth. They understood that it was only through dominion of foreign policy that they would be able to maneuver the economic and political wheel towards their side, acknowledging that foreign commerce was crucial to the nation’s survival. As Richard Henry Lee wrote “ No state in Europe will either Treat or Trade with us so long as we consider ourselves Subjects of G.B. It is not choice then but necessity which calls for Independence, as the only means by which foreign Alliances can be obtained.” (p.19) Politicians concentrated their efforts in the promotion of foreign trade pushing for an agenda that emphasized their belief in republicanism and individualism.
Perkins illustrated the continuous power struggle to control of foreign policy between congress and the presidency. The latter was able in many events, to influence and dictate policies creating tensions between the two branches. This power struggle was deep-rooted in the Constitution. Edward S. Corwin concluded that the constitution “is an invitation to struggle for privilege of directing American foreign policy” (p.70). This contradiction demonstrated that behind closed doors, American presidents would prioritize its interested disregarding the main values aspired by the convention in Philadelphia. A double standard criticized by many today.
National interest was the most important aspect of foreign policy, although, as Perkins states “it professes to represent the aspirations of the entire world. Foreign policy include same emphasis on national self-interest, the same intrusion of the larger culture, the same distortions- sometimes minor, sometimes substantial-of the view of the world events seen through a prism of national but not universal values”.(p. 6) Directly connected to national interest, as Perkins described in his prism concept, is the American devotion to isolationism. By opening its commerce to every nation, and by committing themselves to non involvement policy with the politics of other continents (especially the corrupted European international politics), U.S believe that “reason would rule (p. 22) and isolation was the only way to avoid exploitation and perhaps even wars of no real concern to the United States but dangerous to independence and happiness.” (p. 23) However, with the French alliance treaties of 1778 in which the American Revolution was to receive aid essential to the accomplishment of the movement, showed the ambiguity within American Policy. The commercial treaty reflected isolationism and the treaty of conditional alliance implicated the US into the European politics. Reality was way from the utopia ideals of the Revolution.
After the peaceful political transition after the first national election, the bi-partisan system became a prevalent force in politics. This is a very significant development especially with the beginning of the European wars in the last decade of the eighteen century. Americans constituents responded to the pronouncements of their fellow partisan leaders. Perkins stated “differences over foreign policies dominated the political battle field” (p. 95) .Federalists and Republicans both came to the view the European contest as extension of their own struggle. Federalists already felt that democracy could go too far; they believe that events in France so proved and they could not respect those who differ from them. Republicans had already identified the domestic conflict as an effort to defend America against corrupting English ways, and it was easy now to see administration policy as an attempt to ally the country with England and the league of despots against liberty and the French. Republicans were pro-French and Federalists pro-British” (p. 84). However, a policy of peace and neutrality reflecting the ideal of non involvement was agreed by all Americans and Pres. Washington Neutrality Act of 1794 proclaimed independence of neutral commerce. This policy it obtained extensive economic benefits. Both England and France had to open their trade policies increasing imports and opening colonial ports to foreign ships due to the necessity of supplies during the wars. As Perkins states “when war resumed, so did profits – for farmers, plantation owners, merchants, and the nation as a whole. The United States had established itself as a growing factor in the world economy. Like territorial empire, this was very largely a consequence of the Europe’s wars” (p. 93).
Republicans took power in the beginning of the nineteen hundreds, and managed an agreement with France, in which Napoleon renounced the entire colony of Louisiana. This was a major accomplishment by Jefferson’s administration when territorial expansionism was at the heart of political discourse. Perkins states “The acquisition more than double the size of the US and more than any other event in the Republic era, placed the nation on the road to world power.”(p.117). However, after the success of the Louisiana Purchase, the federalist faced many threats that attempted to weaken American commerce by Europeans, which after much humiliation ended causing a war with England. The United States was sending the message to Europe that they were the owners of commerce and only Americans had to right to decide who would be their trade alliances. Jefferson and Madison try to get concessions from England by applying the tactic of fear of war. Speeding up the approval of an embargo policy and preventing American exports to leave the country, the administration again sent a message of warning proved not to be effective. Perkins describes “the Embargo stimulated law breaking so extensive as to undermine the Republican regime, perhaps the Constitution itself…citizens of all occupations, were unwilling to make economic sacrifices the policy required. At no time was the Embargo close to success as an instrument of coercion” (p.128). Republicans were effective in selling the concept of war by linking it to the attacks against commerce with attacks on independence and gained popular support for the war. Nothing much was gained from the war but a revitalized nationalistic pride.
The Monroe Doctrine was implemented in fervent phase of nationalism and was aimed to further expand commerce, encourage national self-sufficiency, territory expansionism and influence abroad sending the message of freedom and therefore non acceptance policy of Europe’s colonization of new territory in the American continent. With this in mind and rumors that England had interest of conquering Florida, the U.S. “forced” Spain into a treaty to transfer the Sunshine colony to the American union. At the same time, Spanish colonies throughout Latin American started their independence revolutions. Even though isolationism and non-intervention principle was very much part of American culture the United States begun to recognized the newly sovereign nations. Most importantly, the doctrine was intended to make Europe realize that Americans were pronouncing their diplomatic autonomy. However in reality, Europe continued to have influence in the south. With the Manifest Destiny, Americans preached to be the beacon of democracy and freedom and were called to missionary enterprise to save the world. Latin American received this as a demonstration of American arrogance and domination where its interest in expansion was primarily preoccupied with increase of power. Perkins’ concluded that “racism, also worked, in a perhaps paradoxical way, to limit the extent of territorial ambition (p.173) and moral ideology was the partner of self interest in intimate alliance of which expansionism was the offspring.” (p.178) The 1840s was a decade of successful expansionism in part due to misfortune events in Europe. Europe needed a break and America benefited from it. America became what Perkins describe as “a power of first class, a nation which it is dangerous to offend and almost impossible to attack.” (p.231)
In conclusion, Perkins presents a homogeneous account of the evolution of the American Foreign Policy detailing how national politics influenced foreign relations. America experienced an identity crises struggling with paradox of the policies of isolationism and expansionism. This was revealed in an oscillating pattern of her foreign policies reflecting contradictory combination of ideals of democracy and liberalism with expansionism which was present in the very birth of the nation. The author did not clarify if expansionism was adopted by the founders as a reaction to European power or if it was an intrinsic American desire for power. In my view, Perkins wrote the book only to the U.S audience failing to prescribe the repercussions of the American policies of the period in other parts of the world including Latin America, Asia and Africa.
Notes:
Perkins, Bradford The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume I, The Creation of the Republican Empire, 1776-1865 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
American Foreign Policy started to be patterned in the early days of the American Revolution. Since the beginning, Americans were driven by the desire to attain power and wealth. They understood that it was only through dominion of foreign policy that they would be able to maneuver the economic and political wheel towards their side, acknowledging that foreign commerce was crucial to the nation’s survival. As Richard Henry Lee wrote “ No state in Europe will either Treat or Trade with us so long as we consider ourselves Subjects of G.B. It is not choice then but necessity which calls for Independence, as the only means by which foreign Alliances can be obtained.” (p.19) Politicians concentrated their efforts in the promotion of foreign trade pushing for an agenda that emphasized their belief in republicanism and individualism.
Perkins illustrated the continuous power struggle to control of foreign policy between congress and the presidency. The latter was able in many events, to influence and dictate policies creating tensions between the two branches. This power struggle was deep-rooted in the Constitution. Edward S. Corwin concluded that the constitution “is an invitation to struggle for privilege of directing American foreign policy” (p.70). This contradiction demonstrated that behind closed doors, American presidents would prioritize its interested disregarding the main values aspired by the convention in Philadelphia. A double standard criticized by many today.
National interest was the most important aspect of foreign policy, although, as Perkins states “it professes to represent the aspirations of the entire world. Foreign policy include same emphasis on national self-interest, the same intrusion of the larger culture, the same distortions- sometimes minor, sometimes substantial-of the view of the world events seen through a prism of national but not universal values”.(p. 6) Directly connected to national interest, as Perkins described in his prism concept, is the American devotion to isolationism. By opening its commerce to every nation, and by committing themselves to non involvement policy with the politics of other continents (especially the corrupted European international politics), U.S believe that “reason would rule (p. 22) and isolation was the only way to avoid exploitation and perhaps even wars of no real concern to the United States but dangerous to independence and happiness.” (p. 23) However, with the French alliance treaties of 1778 in which the American Revolution was to receive aid essential to the accomplishment of the movement, showed the ambiguity within American Policy. The commercial treaty reflected isolationism and the treaty of conditional alliance implicated the US into the European politics. Reality was way from the utopia ideals of the Revolution.
After the peaceful political transition after the first national election, the bi-partisan system became a prevalent force in politics. This is a very significant development especially with the beginning of the European wars in the last decade of the eighteen century. Americans constituents responded to the pronouncements of their fellow partisan leaders. Perkins stated “differences over foreign policies dominated the political battle field” (p. 95) .Federalists and Republicans both came to the view the European contest as extension of their own struggle. Federalists already felt that democracy could go too far; they believe that events in France so proved and they could not respect those who differ from them. Republicans had already identified the domestic conflict as an effort to defend America against corrupting English ways, and it was easy now to see administration policy as an attempt to ally the country with England and the league of despots against liberty and the French. Republicans were pro-French and Federalists pro-British” (p. 84). However, a policy of peace and neutrality reflecting the ideal of non involvement was agreed by all Americans and Pres. Washington Neutrality Act of 1794 proclaimed independence of neutral commerce. This policy it obtained extensive economic benefits. Both England and France had to open their trade policies increasing imports and opening colonial ports to foreign ships due to the necessity of supplies during the wars. As Perkins states “when war resumed, so did profits – for farmers, plantation owners, merchants, and the nation as a whole. The United States had established itself as a growing factor in the world economy. Like territorial empire, this was very largely a consequence of the Europe’s wars” (p. 93).
Republicans took power in the beginning of the nineteen hundreds, and managed an agreement with France, in which Napoleon renounced the entire colony of Louisiana. This was a major accomplishment by Jefferson’s administration when territorial expansionism was at the heart of political discourse. Perkins states “The acquisition more than double the size of the US and more than any other event in the Republic era, placed the nation on the road to world power.”(p.117). However, after the success of the Louisiana Purchase, the federalist faced many threats that attempted to weaken American commerce by Europeans, which after much humiliation ended causing a war with England. The United States was sending the message to Europe that they were the owners of commerce and only Americans had to right to decide who would be their trade alliances. Jefferson and Madison try to get concessions from England by applying the tactic of fear of war. Speeding up the approval of an embargo policy and preventing American exports to leave the country, the administration again sent a message of warning proved not to be effective. Perkins describes “the Embargo stimulated law breaking so extensive as to undermine the Republican regime, perhaps the Constitution itself…citizens of all occupations, were unwilling to make economic sacrifices the policy required. At no time was the Embargo close to success as an instrument of coercion” (p.128). Republicans were effective in selling the concept of war by linking it to the attacks against commerce with attacks on independence and gained popular support for the war. Nothing much was gained from the war but a revitalized nationalistic pride.
The Monroe Doctrine was implemented in fervent phase of nationalism and was aimed to further expand commerce, encourage national self-sufficiency, territory expansionism and influence abroad sending the message of freedom and therefore non acceptance policy of Europe’s colonization of new territory in the American continent. With this in mind and rumors that England had interest of conquering Florida, the U.S. “forced” Spain into a treaty to transfer the Sunshine colony to the American union. At the same time, Spanish colonies throughout Latin American started their independence revolutions. Even though isolationism and non-intervention principle was very much part of American culture the United States begun to recognized the newly sovereign nations. Most importantly, the doctrine was intended to make Europe realize that Americans were pronouncing their diplomatic autonomy. However in reality, Europe continued to have influence in the south. With the Manifest Destiny, Americans preached to be the beacon of democracy and freedom and were called to missionary enterprise to save the world. Latin American received this as a demonstration of American arrogance and domination where its interest in expansion was primarily preoccupied with increase of power. Perkins’ concluded that “racism, also worked, in a perhaps paradoxical way, to limit the extent of territorial ambition (p.173) and moral ideology was the partner of self interest in intimate alliance of which expansionism was the offspring.” (p.178) The 1840s was a decade of successful expansionism in part due to misfortune events in Europe. Europe needed a break and America benefited from it. America became what Perkins describe as “a power of first class, a nation which it is dangerous to offend and almost impossible to attack.” (p.231)
In conclusion, Perkins presents a homogeneous account of the evolution of the American Foreign Policy detailing how national politics influenced foreign relations. America experienced an identity crises struggling with paradox of the policies of isolationism and expansionism. This was revealed in an oscillating pattern of her foreign policies reflecting contradictory combination of ideals of democracy and liberalism with expansionism which was present in the very birth of the nation. The author did not clarify if expansionism was adopted by the founders as a reaction to European power or if it was an intrinsic American desire for power. In my view, Perkins wrote the book only to the U.S audience failing to prescribe the repercussions of the American policies of the period in other parts of the world including Latin America, Asia and Africa.
Notes:
Perkins, Bradford The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume I, The Creation of the Republican Empire, 1776-1865 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)