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)
