The foreign policy of the United States is its interaction with foreign countries and how it sets interaction standards for organizations, companies and system residents in the United States.
The official purpose of the United States foreign policy, including all the Bureaux and the Office of the United States Department of State, as mentioned in the Foreign Ministry's Foreign Policy Agenda, is "to build and maintain a more democratic, safe and prosperous for the benefit of the American people and the international community. "In addition, the US State Committee for Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional objectives:" export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware, measures to encourage commercial interaction with foreign countries and to protect American business abroad, international commodity agreements, international education and the protection of American citizens abroad and expatriates. "US foreign policy and foreign aid has been a subject of debate, praise and criticism, both both domestically and abroad.
Video Foreign policy of the United States
Kekuasaan Presiden
Subject to suggestions and approval of the role of the US Senate, the President of the United States negotiates agreements with foreign countries, but the treaty comes into force if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President is also Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and thus has broad authority over the armed forces. Both the Secretary of State and the ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and approval of the Senate. The US Secretary of State acts similarly to the minister of foreign affairs and under the leadership of the Executive is the main conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.
Maps Foreign policy of the United States
Powers of the Congress
Congress is the only branch of government that has the authority to declare war. Furthermore, Congress writes the civil and military budget, thereby having great power in military action and foreign aid. Congress also has the power to regulate trade with foreign countries.
Historical overview
The major trend on US foreign policy history since the American Revolution was a shift from non-intervention before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemony during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War of the 20th century War. Since the 19th century, US foreign policy has also been characterized by a shift from realist schools to idealistic or Wilsonian international relations schools.
The themes of foreign policy were expressed quite a lot in George Washington's farewell speech; this includes among other things, observing good faith and justice against all nations and fostering peace and harmony with all people, excluding "the common antipathy against certain nations, and a passionate attachment to others", "keep away from fellowship permanent with any part of the foreign world, "and advocated trade with all nations. These policies became the basis of the Federalist Party in the 1790s. But its rivals, the Jeffersonians, worried about Britain and favored France in the 1790s, declared the War of 1812 in England. After 1778 aligned with France, the United States did not sign any permanent treaties until the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Over time, other themes, main goals, attitudes, or attitudes have been expressed by the President's 'doctrine', named for them. Initially this was an unusual event, but since World War II, this has been done by most presidents.
The Jeffersonians strongly opposed any large army and navy until an attack on American voyages by Barbary Corsair prompted the country to develop a naval projection capability, resulting in the First Barbarian War in 1801.
Although there were two wars with the European Powers - the War of 1812 and the 1898 Spanish-American War - American foreign policy was peaceful and marked by the permanent expansion of its foreign trade during the 19th century. The purchase of 1803 Louisiana doubled the country's geographical area; Spain surrendered Florida territory in 1819; annexation brought the independent Republic of Texas in 1845; war with Mexico in 1848 added California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. The US bought Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, and annexed the independent Republic of Hawaii in 1898. Victory over Spain in 1898 brought the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, as well as Cuban surveillance. A brief experiment in imperialism ended in 1908, when the US turned its attention to the Panama Canal and stabilized the area in the south, including Mexico.
20th century
World War I
The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which the United States, along with its allies, defeated its enemies and enhanced its international reputation. Fourteen Points President Wilson developed from the program of Wilsonian idealism to spread democracy and fight militarism to end any war. This became the basis of the German Truce (completely surrendered) and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The resulting Versailles Treaty, due to the draft penalties and territorial allies of Europe, indicates an inadequate mismatch with these points and the US signed a separate treaty with each of them, each of his opponents; because of Senate objection too, the US never joined the League of Nations, which was founded as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States attended an independent course, and succeeded in a maritime disarmament program, and restored German economic funding. Operating outside the League, he became a dominant player in diplomatic affairs. New York became the world's financial capital, but Wall Street Crash in 1929 threw the Western industrial world into the Great Depression. American trade policy relies on high tariffs under the Republic, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any case exports are at very low levels in the 1930s.
World War II
The United States adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but then President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved towards the Allied strong support in their war against Germany and Japan. As a result of a strong internal debate, the national policy is one that became Arsenal Democracy, which is to finance and equip Allied troops without sending American combat troops. Roosevelt mentions four fundamental freedoms, which should be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; this includes freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from desire and fear. Roosevelt helped establish the term for the postwar world among potential allies at the Atlantic Conference; specific points were incorporated to correct previous failures, which was a step towards the United Nations. American policy is to threaten Japan, to force it out of China, and prevent its attacks on the Soviet Union. However, Japan reacted with the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States fought with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of loans granted to allies in World War I, the United States granted a Lend-Lease grant of $ 50,000,000,000. In collaboration with Winston Churchill of England, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his troops to the Pacific against Japan, then to North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally to Europe beginning with France and Italy in 1944 against Germany. The American economy roared forward, doubled industrial production, and built a large number of aircraft, ships, tanks, ammunition, and finally an atomic bomb. Most of the American war effort went to strategic bombers, who leveled the cities of Japan and Germany.
Cold War
After the war, the US rose to a dominant non-colonial economic power with widespread influence in much of the world, with Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine's major policies. However, soon, the world witnessed the division into two large camps during the Cold War; one side is led by the US and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also leads to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century and is considered an ideological struggle and power between two superpowers. The policy of detention was adopted to limit the expansion of the Soviets, and a series of proxy wars fought with mixed results. In 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved into separate states, and the Cold War officially ended when the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation and other Soviet states.
In domestic politics, foreign policy is usually not a major issue. In 1945-1970, the Democratic Party took a strong anti-Communist line and supported the war in Korea and Vietnam. Later the party parted ways with a strong, "dovish" peaceful element (marked by 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern). Many "hawks", war supporters, joined the Neoconservative movement and began supporting the Republic - notably Reagan - based on foreign policy. Meanwhile, until 1952 the Republican Party was split between the isolation wing, based in the Midwest and led by Senator Robert A. Taft, and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely for foreign policy reasons. Since then, Republicans have been characterized by violent and strong American nationalism, and strong opposition to Communism, and strong support for Israel.
21st century
In the 21st century, US influence remained strong but, relatively, declined in terms of economic output compared to rising countries such as China, India, Russia and the newly consolidated EU. Substantial problems persist, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the scourge of nuclear terrorism. Foreign policy analysts Hachigian and Sutphen in their book The Next American Century suggested all five powers have equal importance in the stability and prevention of terrorism and commerce; if they can find common ground, then the next decade can be characterized by peaceful growth and prosperity.
In 2017 diplomats from other countries are developing new tactics to deal with President Donald Trump. The New York Times reported on the eve of his first foreign trip as president:
- For foreign leaders who are trying to figure out the best way to approach an American president unlike those they know, this is the time of the experiment. The embassy in Washington trades tips and ambassadors to send cables to the president and ministers back home suggesting how to deal with a lively and strong-willed leader with no real experience on the world stage, a preference for personal diplomacy and a sense of luxury.... certain rules arise : In short - no monologue 30 minutes for 30 seconds attention span. Do not assume he knows the history of the country or the main points of his dispute. Praise him for his Electoral College victory. Compare him with President Barack Obama. Do not get stuck on anything that's said during the campaign. Stay in the usual touch. Do not go in with shopping list but bring some sort of deal he can summon victory.
Trump has many aides who advise on foreign policy. The chief diplomat is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The main position of its foreign policy, which is sometimes at odds with Trump, includes: urged the United States to remain in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate agreement, take a hard line on Russia, advocate for talks and dialogue to ease the crisis that culminates with North Korea, advocating for continuing US compliance with Iran's nuclear deal , taking a neutral stance in a dispute between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and assuring anxious allies, from South Korea and Japan to our NATO partners, that America still has their backs.
Legal
In the United States, there are three types of law related to the agreement:
- Agreement is a formal written agreement specified by the Constitution Clause Agreement. The president made a pact with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty had to be ratified by two-thirds of the vote in the Senate. For example, President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied forces, but this agreement was rejected by the Senate; as a result, the US then makes separate agreements with various countries. Although most international law has a broader interpretation of the terms agreement , the term US understanding is more limited. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to enter into an agreement under the US Constitution was a force separate from the other one-to-one powers of the federal government, and therefore the federal government could use the treaty to make laws in an area that otherwise fell in state exclusive authority.
- The executive agreement is made by the President - in the exercise of the executive power of his Constitution - alone.
- The congress-executive agreement is made by the President and Congress. The majority of the two houses make it binding like ordinary legislation after being signed by the president. The Constitution does not explicitly state that this agreement is permitted, and constitutional experts such as Laurence Tribe consider them unconstitutional.
Unlike most other countries, the United States considers the three types of agreements different. Furthermore, the United States incorporated treaty law into US federal legal entities. As a result, Congress may modify or revoke the agreement thereafter. It can override any agreed contractual obligations even if this is seen as a breach of treaties under international law. Several US court rulings confirmed this understanding, including the Supreme Court decision in Paquete Habana v. United States (1900), and Reid v. Covert (1957), as well as lower court rulings n Garcia-Mir v. Meese (1986). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has declared itself to have the power to set a treaty as null and void by declaring it "unconstitutional", although in 2011, he never used this power.
The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents the established law. Generally, when the US signs an agreement, it is binding. However, as a result of the decision Reid v. Covert , the US added a reservation to the text of any agreement that says, in effect, that the US intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, then the US is legally unable to comply with the agreement because the US signature will be ultra vires .
International agreements
The United States has ratified and participated in many other multilateral agreements, including arms control agreements (especially with the Soviet Union), human rights treaties, environmental protocols, and free trade agreements.
Economy and general governance
The United States is a founding member of the United Nations and most of its specialized agencies, mainly including the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund. The United States has sometimes withheld payments due to disputes with the United Nations.
The United States is also a member of:
- Organization of American States
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
- Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
- NAFTA, regional trade blocs with Canada and Mexico
- World Trade Organization
- Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
- Group of Seven (G7)
- World Customs Organization
Free Associate Status
After seizing the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered the Pacific Islands of Confidence from 1947 to 1986 (1994 to Palau). Northern Mariana Islands became US territory (part of the United States), while Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau became independent states. Each of them has signed the Compassion Free Association which provides exclusive US military access in exchange for US defense protection and military foreign affairs (except the declaration of war) and several billion dollars of aid. This agreement also generally allows citizens of these countries to live and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provides the majority of free trade. The federal government also provides access to services from domestic agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Weather Service, the United States Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the US representation to the International Frequency Registration Agency of the International Telecommunication Union.
Not participating in multilateral agreements
The United States primarily does not participate in international treaties that are complied with by virtually all other industrialized countries, by virtually all countries in America, or by virtually every other country in the world. With large populations and economies, at this practical level may undermine the effects of a particular agreement, or provide another country with a precedent for quoting not to participate in various agreements.
In some cases, arguments against participation include that the United States should maximize sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create the basis for lawsuits that would treat American citizens unjustly. In other cases, the debate becomes involved in domestic political issues, such as arms control, climate change, and the death penalty.
Examples include:
- The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations agreement (valid 1920-45, signed but not ratified)
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (enacted in 1976, ratified by substantial ordering)
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (enacted in 1976, signed but not ratified)
- American Convention on Human Rights (enacted in 1978)
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (enacted in 1981, signed but not ratified)
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (valid in 1990, signed but not ratified)
- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (valid in 1994)
- Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (signed in 1996 but never ratified and never applied)
- Mine Ban Treaty (valid in 1999)
- International Criminal Court (enacted in 2002)
- Kyoto Protocol (valid 2005-12, signed but not ratified)
- Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (entered into force in 2006)
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (enacted in 2008, signed but not ratified)
- Convention on Cluster Munitions (coming into force in 2010)
- International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (effective 2010)
- Arms Trading Agreement (valid in 2014)
- Other human rights treaties
Hub and talk vs. multilateral
While American relations with Europe tend to be in a multilateral framework, such as NATO, America's relations with Asia tend to be based on a "hub and spoke" model using a series of bilateral relationships in which countries coordinate with the United States and do not collaborate with each other. On May 30, 2009, at the Secretary of Defense of the Shangri-La Dialogue, Robert M. Gates urged Asian countries to establish at this center and spoke the model when they established and cultivated multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and ad hoc arrangements in the region. However, in 2011 Gates said that the United States should act as an "indispensable nation" to build multilateral cooperation.
Oil
Persian Gulf
In 2014, the US currently produces about 66% of the oil consumed. While imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques and the discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the US Dakotas offer the potential for increased energy independence from oil exporting countries like OPEC. Former US President George W. Bush identifies dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security issue".
Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf. Regardless of the distance, the Persian Gulf region was first reported as a national interest for the United States during World War II. Oil is of great importance to modern armies, and the United States - as the world's leading oil producer at the time - supplied most of the oil to the Allied forces. Many US strategists fear that the war will greatly reduce US oil supplies, so they seek to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with huge oil reserves.
The Persian Gulf region has continued to be considered a very important area for the United States during the Cold War. Three Cold War The Doctrine of the American Presidency - The Truman Doctrine, Eisenhower Doctrine, and Nixon Doctrine - played a role in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine, stating that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its "national" interests "in the Persian Gulf region.Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, expanded his policy in October 1981 to what is sometimes called "Reagan Corollary to Carter Doctrine", which states that the United States will intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security is threatened after the outbreak Iran-Iraq War Some analysts argue that the application of Carter Doctrine and Reagan Corollary also played a part in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.
Canada
Almost all Canadian energy exports enter the United States, making it the largest foreign source of US energy imports: Canada is consistently among the main sources for US oil imports, and is the largest source of US natural gas and electricity imports.
Africa
In 2007 the US was one of the largest single export markets in Sub-Saharan Africa for 28% of exports (secondly to EU by 31%). 81% of US imports from this region are petroleum products.
Foreign help
Foreign aid is a core component of the Foreign Affairs Department's international affairs budget, which is $ 49 billion in total for 2014. Assistance is considered an essential instrument of US foreign policy. There are four main categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development assistance, economic aid that supports US political and security objectives, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (eg, contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund).
In absolute dollars, the United States government is the largest international aid donor ($ 23 billion by 2014). The US Agency for International Development (USAID) manages most of the bilateral economic aid; The Treasury handles most of the multilateral assistance. In addition many private institutions, churches and philanthropy provide assistance.
Although the United States is the largest donor in absolute dollars, it actually ranks 19 of the 27 countries on the Index of Commitment for Development. CDI ranks 27 richest donor countries on their policies that affect the developing world. In the aid component, the United States is punished for the low volume of clean aid as part of the economy, largely tied or partially bound aid, and much of the aid provided to poor and relatively undemocratic governments.
Foreign aid is a very partisan problem in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting much more foreign aid than conservatives do.
Military
In 2016, the United States is actively conducting military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda under Authorization for the Use of Military Forces against Terrorists, including in battle areas in the Syrian Civil War and Yemen Civil War. The Guantanamo Bay Navy base holds what the federal government considers unlawful fighters of this ongoing activity, and has become a controversial issue in foreign relations, domestic politics, and Cuba-US relations. Other major US military issues include stability in Afghanistan and Iraq after recent invasions in those countries, and Russian military activity in Ukraine.
Mutual defense agreement
The United States is a founding member of NATO, an alliance of 28 North American and European countries set up to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Under the NATO charter, the United States was forced to defend a NATO country that was attacked by foreign powers. The United States itself was the first country to adopt a joint defense alliance, in response to the September 11 attacks.
The United States also has military defense agreements together with:
- Australia and New Zealand
- Japan
- South Korea
- Philippines
- Thailand, with other countries previously in the Organization of Southeast Asian Pact
- Most countries in South America, Central America and Caribbean, through Inter-American Assistance Mutual Assistance
The United States has the responsibility to defend the three countries Free of Free Association: Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau.
Allies and other multilateral organizations
In 1989, the United States also granted five major non-NATO allied status nations (MNNA), and in addition to the presidency it has brought the list to 28 countries. Each such country has a unique relationship with the United States, which involves various partnerships and military and economic alliances.
and lower agreements with:
- Taiwan
- Israel
- Saudi Arabia
The US participates in various multilateral organizations dealing with the military, including:
- Organization for Chemical Weapons Ban
- International Atomic Energy Agency
The US also operates hundreds of military bases around the world.
Unilateral vs. military action multilateral
The United States has conducted unilateral and multilateral military operations throughout its history (see Timeline of US military operations). In the post-World War II era, the country has a permanent membership and a veto in the Security Council of the United Nations, allowing it to take military action without the opposition of the formal Security Council. With massive military expenditures, the United States is known to be the only superpower left after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US contributes a relatively small amount of personnel to UN peacekeeping operations. Sometimes acting through NATO, such as with NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and ISAF in Afghanistan, but often acting unilaterally or in an ad hoc coalition as with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Charter of the United Nations requires military operations to defend themselves or be expressly approved by the Security Council. Although many of their operations have followed these rules, the United States and NATO have been accused of crimes against peace in international law, for example in the 1999 Yugoslavia and 2003 Iraq operations.
Help
The US provides military assistance through many different channels. Counting items appearing in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Colombia Plan', the US spent about $ 4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $ 2 billion was sent to Israel, $ 1.3 billion sent to Egypt, and $ 1 billion goes to Colombia. Since 9/11, Pakistan has received about $ 11.5 billion in direct military aid.
In 2004, according to Fox News, the US has more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.
Estimated US foreign military financing and assistance by beneficiaries for 2010:
According to a 2016 report by the Congressional Research Service, the US occupies the highest market in global arms sales for 2015, with $ 40 billion sold. The biggest buyers are Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel, United Arab Emirates and Iraq.
Missile Defense
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by US President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983 to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attacks by strategic ballistic missiles, later dubbed "Star Wars" > This initiative focuses on strategic defense rather than the doctrine of previous mutually convincing violations (MAD). Although never fully developed or disseminated, SDI research and technology paved the way for some of today's anti-ballistic missile systems.
In February 2007, the United States began formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on the construction of a shield missile installations in these countries for the Midcourse Ground-Based Defense system (in April 2007, 57% of Poland opposed the plan). According to press reports, the Czech Republic government agreed (while 67% of Czechs disagree) to host missile defense radar in its territory while a missile interceptor base should be built in Poland.
Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russian border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor and radar interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic. In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if America deployed a shield in Central Europe. Putin also said that Russia is ready to abandon its obligations under the Nuclear Force's Medium-Term Force Treaty of 1987 with the United States.
On August 14, 2008, the United States and Poland announced an agreement to implement a missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system housed in the Czech Republic. "The fact that this was signed in a very difficult period of crisis in relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia," Dmitry Rogozin, Russia, said.
Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, argue abroad that US missile defense is designed to secure Washington's nuclear advantage and is primarily directed at potential rivals such as Russia and China. The authors note that Washington continues to distance itself from the first nuclear attack and argues that deploying missile defenses "would be especially valuable in an offensive, non-defensive context, in addition to US First Strike's capabilities, not as stand-alone shields":
If the United States launches a nuclear strike against Russia (or China), the targeted state will only have a small arsenal, if any. At that time, even a relatively simple or inefficient missile defense system might be enough to protect against any counterattack.
This analysis was corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and his deputy. The DPG declared that the United States should use its power to "prevent the re-emergence of new rivals" either in former Soviet territories or elsewhere. The Guidelines authors determined that the United States should "launch a missile defense system as a shield against unintentional missile launches or limited missile attacks by 'international criminals'" and also "Find a way to integrate 'new democracy' from the former Soviet bloc into systems led by the US ". The National Archives noted that Document 10 of the DPG includes the words "disarmament ability to destroy" followed by some blackened words. "This suggests that some very cut pages in the DPG draft that are still classified may include some discussion on precautionary measures against nuclear threats and other WMD programs."
Finally, Robert David English, writing abroad, observes that in addition to the US missile defense deployment, the recommendations of both DPGs have also been on track. "Washington has pursued a policy that ignores Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) to besiege Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs that are conducive to US interests."
Exporting democracy
In the history of the United States, critics have accused the president of using democracy to justify military intervention abroad. Critics also allege that the US is helping the local military overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances. The study has been devoted to the success rate of US history in exporting democracy abroad. Several studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of US efforts to encourage democracy in foreign countries. To date, scholars have generally agreed with professor of international relations Abraham Lowenthal that US efforts to export democracy have been "ignored, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive." Other studies have found US intervention to have mixed results, and others by Hermann and Kegley have found that military intervention has increased democracy in other countries.
The opinion that US intervention is not exporting democracy
Professor Paul W. Drake argues that the US first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argues that this is contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictatorial interference in the affairs of another country for the purpose of changing the conditions of things. "This study suggests that efforts to promote democracy fail because democracy needs to be developed from internal conditions, and can not be forcibly imposed. There is disagreement about what constitutes democracy ; Drake suggests American leaders sometimes define democracy in the strict sense of a nation that has elections; Drake suggests a wider understanding is needed. Furthermore, there is disagreement about what constitutes "rebellion"; Drake sees a pattern in which the US State Department does not approve of any kind of rebellion, even the so-called "revolution", and in some instances rebellion against dictatorship. Historian Walter LaFeber states, "The world's leading revolutionary state (USA) in the 18th century became the protector of the status quo in the twentieth century."
Mesquita and Downs evaluated 35 US interventions from 1945 to 2004 and concluded that in just one case, Colombia, conducted a "fully stable democracy," developed within ten years after the intervention. Samia Amin Pei argues that nation-building in developed countries usually breaks down four to six years after the American intervention ends. Pei, based on the study of databases on a global democracy called Polity, agrees with Mesquita and Downs that US intervention efforts usually do not produce real democracy, and that most cases produce greater authoritarianism after ten years.
Professor Joshua Muravchik argues that US occupation is essential to the democratization of the Axis powers after World War II, but America's failure to push for democracy in the third world "proves... that the US military occupation is not a sufficient condition for making a democratic state." The success of democracy in former Axis countries like Italy is seen as a result of high national per capita income, although US protection is seen as a key stabilization and essential to fostering a transition to democracy. Steven Krasner agrees that there is a relationship between wealth and democracy; when per capita income of $ 6,000 is achieved in democracy, there is little chance for the country to return to autocracy, according to analysis of its research at Los Angeles Times.
The opinion that the U.S. intervention has mixed results
Tures examined 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. A number of interventions, 96, did not cause a change in state democracy. In 69 examples, the state became less democratic after the intervention. In the remaining 63 cases, a country becomes more democratic. But this does not take into account the direction the country will take without US intervention.
The opinion that US intervention is effectively exporting democracy
Hermann and Kegley found that American military intervention designed to protect or promote democracy enhanced freedom in these countries. Peceny argues that the democracy created after military intervention is still closer to autocracy than democracy, quoting Przeworski "while some democracies are more democratic than others, except the office is contested, no regime should be considered democratic." Therefore, Peceny concludes, it is difficult to know from the study of Hermann and Kegley whether US intervention resulted in a less repressive autocratic government or genuine democracy.
Peceny states that the United States seeks to export democracy in 33 of 93 20th century military interventions. Peceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.
Global opinion
Global surveys conducted by Pewglobal show that in (at 2014) at least 33 countries surveyed had a positive outlook (50% or more) from the United States. The ten most positive countries are the Philippines (92%), Israel (84%), South Korea (82%), Kenya (80%), El Salvador (80%), Italy (78%), Ghana (77%)) , Vietnam (76%), Bangladesh (76%), and Tanzania (75%). While 10 countries surveyed had the most negative view (Below 50%) of the United States. With the countries being Egypt (10%), Jordan (12%), Pakistan (14%), Turkey (19%), Russia (23%), Palestinian Territories (30%), Greece (34%), Argentina ( 36%)%), Lebanon (41%), Tunisia (42%). America's own view of the United States is seen in 84%. International opinions about the US often change with different executive administrations. For example in 2009, the French public liked the United States when President Barack Obama (75% profitable) succeeded President George W. Bush (42%). After President Donald Trump led in 2017, French public opinion about the US fell from 63% to 46%. This trend is also seen in other European countries.
Hidden action
The foreign policy of the United States also includes secret measures to overthrow foreign governments that have opposed the United States. According to J. Dana Stuster, writing in the Foreign Policy, there are seven "confirmed cases" in which the US - acting primarily through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but sometimes with support from other parts of the US government, including the Navy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - secretly assisted the overthrow of foreign governments: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, Dominican Republic in 1961, South Vietnam in 1963, 1964 and Chile in 1973. Stuster stated that this list excludes "US-backed insurgency and failed assassination attempts" as directed against Cuban Fidel Castro, as well as instances where US involvement has been suspected but not proven (such as Syria in 1949 ).
In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, started Operation Ajax against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iranian oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It has the effect of restoring and strengthening the authoritarian monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1957, the CIA and Israel Mossad assisted the Iranian government in building its intelligence service, SAVAK, which was later blamed for the torture and execution of opponents of the regime.
A year later, in PBSUCCESS Operations , the CIA assists the local military in overthrowing the democratically elected Jacobo ÃÆ'bbenz left-wing government in Guatemala and installing military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. The United Fruit Company lobbied for ÃÆ' rbenz to overthrow as its land reforms endangered their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted this reform as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades-old civil war that claimed the lives of some 200,000 people (42,275 individual cases have been documented), mostly through 626 massacres of Mayan residents by US-backed Guatemalan military. The Independent History Clarification Commission found that US companies and government officials "put pressure on maintaining an old and unjust socio-economic structure," and that the CIA supports counter-insurgency operations.
During the massacre of at least 500,000 people allegedly communist in the 1960s in Indonesia, US government officials praised mass murder while providing secret assistance to the Indonesian military that helped facilitate them. These included the US Embassy in Jakarta that supplied Indonesian troops with a list of up to 5,000 suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were later killed in the massacre. In 2001, the CIA sought to prevent the issuance of the volume of the Foreign Affairs Department of the United States of America, 1964-1968, documenting the role of the United States in providing confidential assistance to the Indonesian military for a clear purpose. from extirpation of the PKI. In July 2016, a panel of international judges ruled the murder was a crime against humanity, and that the US, along with other Western governments, was involved in this crime.
In 1970, the CIA worked with a coup plot in Chile in an attempt to kidnap General Renà © Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup in Salvador Allende's election. Schneider was shot in a failed attempt and died three days later. The CIA then paid the group $ 35,000 for the failed abduction.
Affects foreign selection
According to a peer-reviewed study, the US intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36.
Human rights
Since the 1970s, human rights issues have become increasingly important in American foreign policy. Congress took the lead in the 1970s. After the Vietnam War, the feeling that US foreign policy has grown apart from traditional American values ​​was captured by Senator Donald M. Fraser (D, MI), leading the Subcommittee on the Organization and the International Movement, criticizing Foreign Policy of the Republic under Nixon administration. In the early 1970s, Congress ends the Vietnam War and passes the Power War Law. As "part of Congress's growing assertiveness on many aspects of Foreign Policy," Human Rights becomes a battleground between the Legislature and the Executive branch in foreign policy formulation. David Forsythe points out three specific, early examples of Congress that insert their own thoughts on foreign policy: Sub-section (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensuring assistance through international financial institutions will be limited to countries "other than those whose governments are engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights recognized international. "
These measures are repeatedly used by Congress, with varying degrees of success, to influence US foreign policy towards the inclusion of human rights issues. Specific examples include El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and South Africa. The executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the Cold War needed to place regional security in the interests of the United States for all concerns of national allied behavior. Congress argues otherwise, supporting the United States away from oppressive regimes. Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client countries that perpetrated mass killings exceeded that of the Soviet Union. John Henry Coatsworth, a Latin American historian and provost of Columbia University, pointed out that the number of victims of oppression in Latin America alone far surpassed the Soviet Union and East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990. W. John Green argues that the United States is an "important determinant" of "Latin American political assassination habits, bringing out and allowing for some of the worst trends in the region."
On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries. He also criticized Russian laws that discriminate against gays, joining other Western leaders in the 2014 Winter Olympics boycott in Russia.
In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the killing of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, both Americans, shortly after the Chilean coup of 1973.
War on Drugs
US foreign policy is influenced by US government efforts to control the import of illegal drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. This is especially true in Latin America, the focus for the US War on Drugs. These efforts have been around since 1880, when the US and China concluded agreements banning opium shipments between the two countries.
More than a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify major drug transit or major drug-producing countries. In September 2005, the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of them, Burma and Venezuela are the countries that the US considers to have failed to comply with their obligations under international counter-narcotics agreements over the previous 12 months. Those not included in the 2005 list are Afghanistan, People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada is also eliminated despite evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in MDMA production destined for the United States and that the massive cross-border trade from Canadian-grown cannabis continues. The US believes that the Netherlands successfully counteracted the production and flow of MDMA to the US.
Criticism
Critics of the left quote episode weaken the left government or show support for Israel. Others cite violations of human rights and violations of international law. Critics have alleged that the US president has used democracy to justify military intervention abroad. Critics also point to declassification records showing that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited over 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to be used as spies and informers against the Soviet Union in The cold War..
The United States has faced criticism for supporting right-wing dictators who systematically violate human rights, such as Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay, EfraÃÆ'n RÃÆ'os Montt of Guatemala, Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina, HissÃÆ'¨ne Habrà © Chad Yahya Khan Pakistan and Suharto in Indonesia. Critics also accused the United States in support of Operation Condor , an international campaign of political murder and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America.
Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led air strikes and targeted killings by drones that in some cases resulted in collateral damage to civilians. In early 2017, the United States faced criticism from some ulama, activists and media outlets for bringing down 26,171 bombs in seven different countries throughout 2016: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.
The study has been devoted to the success rate of US history in exporting democracy abroad. Several studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of US efforts to encourage democracy in foreign countries. Some scholars generally agree with professor of international relations Abraham Lowenthal that US efforts to export democracy have been "ignored, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive." Other studies have found US intervention to have mixed results, and others by Hermann and Kegley have found that military intervention has increased democracy in other countries. A 2013 global poll in 68 countries with 66,000 respondents by Win/Gallup found that the US is considered the greatest threat to world peace.
Support
Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, the response was that they were viewed as a necessary evil, with a worse alternative to the Communist or fundamentalist dictatorship. David Schmitz says this policy does not serve the interests of the U.S. The friendly tyrants rejected the necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the 'realist' policy of the hasty dictators brought a counterattack among the foreigners with long memories.
Many democracies have voluntary military relations with the United States. See NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea, and non-NATO allies. Those countries with military alliances with the US can spend less for the military because they can count on U.S. protection. This may give the wrong impression that the US is less peaceful than those countries.
Research on the theory of democratic peace generally finds that democracy, including the United States, is not at war with one another. There is US support for a coup against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation is the perception, rightly or not, that these countries turned into a Communist dictatorship. Also important is the role of a rarely transparent United States government agency, which sometimes misleads or does not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.
Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracy, including the United States, has killed fewer civilians than dictatorships. The media may be biased against the US for reporting human rights abuses. Studies have found that The New York Times's coverage of human rights abuses around the world primarily focuses on human rights abuses in countries where there is a clear US involvement, while having relatively little coverage of abuses human rights in other countries.. For example, the most bloody war in recent times, involving eight countries and killing millions of civilians, is the Second Congo War, almost completely ignored by the media.
Niall Ferguson argues that the US is blamed for all human rights abuses in the countries they have supported. He wrote that it was generally agreed that Guatemala was the worst of the US-backed regime during the Cold War. However, the US can not be credibly blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War. The US Intelligence Oversight Council wrote that military aid was cut for a long time due to the breach, that the US helped stop the coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the behavior of security services.
Today the United States declares that democratic states most support U.S. national interests According to the US State Department, "Democracy is a national interest one that helps to secure everything else. Democratically regulated countries are more likely to secure peace, prevent aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect Americans, combat internationally terrorism and crime, upholding human rights and workers, avoiding humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improving the global environment, and protecting human health. "According to former US President Bill Clinton," Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and build a lasting peace old is to support the progress of democracy elsewhere Democracy does not attack each other. " In one view mentioned by the US Department of State, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reform are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that increase business productivity. Therefore, since the mid-1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in the level of foreign direct investment that goes into growing market democracies relative to countries that have not yet made political reforms. The cable leaked in 2010 showed that "the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates US relations with the world".
The United States officially declared that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools. Examples of these tools are as follows:
- The annual report published by the Department of Foreign Affairs entitled "Promoting Freedom and Democracy", was published in accordance with the ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (previously known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: US Records" in accordance with the law of 2002).
- "Country Report on Human Rights Practices issued annually".
- In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created "Human Rights Defenders" and "Freedom Awards."
- "The Human Rights Award and Democracy Award" recognize the extraordinary achievements of foreign agency officials stationed abroad.
- The "Roundtable Series", created in 2006, is an informal discussion between the newly confirmed US Ambassador and human rights and non-governmental democracy organizations.
- The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit organization formed by Congress in 1983 (and signed by Ronald Reagan's law), which is largely funded by the US Government and provides cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.
See also
- International Relations The Great Power (1814-1919)
References
Further reading
External links
- History of US relationships with countries in the world
- US diplomatic milestone
- US Foreign Relations (FRUS): The Official US Documentary History of Foreign Relations
- Foreign Relations and International Help from UCB Library G
- US. Political Parties and Foreign Policy, background Q & amp; A by the Council on Foreign Relations
- US. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congressional Congressional Research Services
- United States Foreign Relations 1861-1960 (full text of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Library)
- Confidence in the US Foreign Policy Index Tracking survey of America's public attitudes toward foreign policy, conducted by the Public Agenda with Overseas magazines.
- Interactive map of some samples of US Foreign Policy sampling
- Analysis of the Executive-Congressional Agreement (Article by Steve Charnovitz of the American Journal of International Law)
- Other International Agreements and Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate: A Prepared Study for the Committee on Foreign Relations, the United States Senate, by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
- Rethinking US Aid from Dean Peter Krogh Overseas Digital Archives
- Peter Gowan's interview on US foreign policy since 1945
- Good Country of Comments
- American Empire: Murder Inc. Chris Hedges interviewed the American investigative journalist, Allan Nairn
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments