american foreign policy?

Question

im writing a history paper

what are reasons for american neutrality ?

what are reasons for interventionism ?

and why did it change ?

i know some of these things, but it would be nice to get a little more information. plz and thank u

Answer 1

American neutrality was sparked for a number of reasons:

1. America was geographically separated from Europe and the rest of the world by two large oceans, and Americans wanted to stay out of European struggles which they believed they had no business in; and from which they could gain no advantage.

2. America was a developing nation and did not want to invest the large sums of money necessary to maintain large standing armies and navies. Thus, for most of American history, America had virtually no military force with which to become involved. Under these circumstances, neutrality makes perfect sense.

3. The American War of Independence was fought partially over the idea of the British housing a large standing army on American shores, and making the Americans pay for it. The Americans were very apprehensive of the expense. furthermore, large militaries were viewed by Americans as a means of imposing tyranny, and the Americans didn't want them.

So, to sum up, isolation grew from geographic isolation, expense, and fear of tyranny. Why did it change?

1. Commerce. In the 20th century, America was far more dependent on foreign trade than in the 19th. This meant that other nation's problems would have dramatic ramifications on domestic markets.

2. Technology. By the start of WW I, military technology (German U-Boats) could have more impact on American interests. Later developments like Aircraft (think of Pearl Harbor), and still later, ICBM's made the idea of safety behind ocean walls an illusion.

3. Philosophy. In the 20th century, starting with Wilson, the US began to develop a political mentality that intervention in the world for the advancement of democracy was America's destiny. This was reinforced by the atrocities of WW II. Presidents Roosevelt and Truman were convinced that American engagement in the world was indespensible for maintaining world peace. The growth of the Soviet Union after the war only increased that committment, as there was no other nation strong enough to provide leadership against the threats of international communism.

Hope this answer helps. Cheers.

Answer 2

The foreign relations of the United States are marked by the country's large economy, well-funded military, and notable political influence. According to estimates given in the CIA World Factbook, the United States has the world's largest economy, the world's most well-funded military, and a large amount of political influence.[1]

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States repeatedly mentioned and emphasized by government officials, are:

Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad;
Protecting allied nations of the United States from attack or invasion and creating mutually beneficial international defense arrangements and partnerships to ensure this;
Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy in all regions of the world;
Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them; and
Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need.
Ensuring that the flow of oil supplies suffices until such times as ethanol becomes a realistic alternative.
All of these statements are the targets of many criticisms from various sources, some of which are listed below
[edit] Decision-making
The President negotiates treaties with foreign nations. The President is also Commander in Chief of the military, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces once they are deployed. The Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

The Congress has the power to declare war, but the President has the ability to commit military troops to an area for 60 days without Congressional approval, though in all cases it has been granted afterwards. The Senate (one of the two houses of Congress) also holds the exclusive right to approve treaties made by the President. Congress is likewise responsible for passing bills that determine the general character and policies of United States foreign policy.

The third arm of government is the Supreme Court which has traditionally played a minimal role in foreign policy.


[edit] Brief history
American foreign policy can be considered to have first emerged with the initiation of the "Olive Branch Policy", an attempt on the part of the new state of America to reconcile with Great Britain. During the American Revolution, the United States established relations with several European powers, convincing France, Spain, and the Netherlands to intervene in the war against Britain, a mutual enemy. In the period following, the U.S. oscillated between pro-French and pro-British policies. In general, the U.S. remained aloof from European disputes, focusing on territorial expansion in North America.

After the Spanish colonies in Latin America declared independence, the U.S. established the Monroe Doctrine, a policy of keeping European powers out of the Americas. U.S. expansionism led to war with Mexico and to diplomatic conflict with Britain over the Oregon Territory and with Spain over Florida and later Cuba. During the American Civil War, the U.S. accused Britain and France of supporting the Confederate States and accused France of trying to control Mexico. After the Civil War Anglo-American relations improved as the wartime cooperation continued. The most comprehensive treaty of the century was concluded at Washington on May 8th 1871 that resolved antebellum and wartime disputes. Meanwhile, American patience about the French military occupation of Mexico City to protect the puppet ruler Napoleon III had sent, Maximilian, succeeded. The French government became increasingly bankrupted by the Mexican initiative, said to be part of Napoleon III's "grand design" to modernize backward nations. His design was more fraudulent to spread his imperial power, which he was then unable to do in Europe or elsewhere such as in the Middle East. In 1866 and 1867 over 40,000 French troops were withdrawn from Mexico and, despite American Secretary of State William Henry Seward's entreaties on his behalf, Maximilian was executed. Actually with the end of British military persuasion after 1815, the U.S. was unchallenged in its home territory, except by Native Americans. Through the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, it strove to be the dominant influence in the Americas, trying to weaken European influence in Latin America and occasionally intervening to establish puppet governments in weak states.

As U.S. power grew, it began to look at interests farther abroad, particularly in the pursuit of trade. It occupied territories in the Pacific, such as Hawaii and the Philippines, demanded the opening of Japan to trade, and competed with other powers for influence in China. During World War I, the United States was among the victorious Allies, after which it returned to more isolationist policies.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President George W. BushThe United States entered World War II in 1941, again on the Allied side, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war against the U.S. by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After the war, it was a major player in the establishment of the United Nations and became one of five permanent members of the Security Council.

During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy sought to limit the influence of the Soviet Union around the world (called "containment"), leading to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the overthrow of at least one democratic government, and diplomatic actions like the opening of China and establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It also sought to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Britain as a global power, leading international economic organizations such as the WTO and GATT. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. had military and economic interests in every region of the globe. In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States invaded Panama, officially because Noriega (the then dictator) was involved in drug trafficking; in reality because the US didn't want to relinquish the Panama canal on Panama's terms. In the 1980s the U.S. operated campaigns in Central America, supporting the organisation "Contras" in Nicaragua and the dictatorial governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador. In 1986 the US was convicted of multiple violations of international law and breaches of treaties against Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Further information: Nicaragua v. United States‎
In 1991, the U.S. organized and led the Gulf War against Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait. After the September 11, 2001 attack, the country declared a "War on Terror," under which it has led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (Second Gulf War).

As of 2006, the U.S. is one of only two countries in the English-speaking world not to be a member of the Commonwealth (the other being the Republic of Ireland).


[edit] Diplomatic relations

President of the United States, George W. Bush (right) at Camp David in March 2003, hosting the British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
President of the United States George W. Bush on 16 May 2006, with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. From left to right: the Prime Minister's wife Janette Howard, U.S. First Lady Laura Bush, Howard, and Bush.The United States has one of the largest diplomatic presences of any nation. Almost every country in the world has both a U.S. embassy and an embassy of its own in Washington, D.C. Only a few nations do not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States. They are:

Bhutan (The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India has consular responsibilities for Bhutan)[2]
Cuba
Iran (the ambassador of Switzerland acts as intermediary between Tehran and Washington DC)
North Korea
Somalia (no widely recognized government)
Sudan
Republic of China (Taiwan) (recognized by fewer than 30 countries)
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) (not recognized)
In practical terms however, this lack of formal relations do not impede the U.S.'s communication with these nations. In the cases where no U.S. diplomatic post exists, American relations are usually conducted via the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, or another friendly third-party. In the case of the Republic of China, de facto relations are conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan. The U.S. also operates an "Interests Section in Havana". While this does not create a formal diplomatic relationship, it fulfils most other typical embassy functions.

The U.S. maintains a Normal Trade Relations list and several countries are excluded from it, which means that their exports to the United States are subject to significantly higher tariffs.


[edit] Allies

In recent years, relations between the United States and India, have improved. Shown here is Indian PM Manmohan Singh with George Bush during his state visit to the U.S. in July 2005.The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 26 nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. This is restricted to within the North American and European areas, and for this reason the U.S. was not compelled to participate in the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

The United States has also given major non-NATO ally-status to fourteen nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

The country's closest ally is arguably the United Kingdom, itself a major military and economic power, although Australia and Canada have also proved to be extremely resilient allies.

Further information: special relationship
Other allies include South Korea, Israel, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, and Japan. The government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), does not have official diplomatic relations recognized and is no longer officially recognized by the State Department of the United States, but it is considered by some an ally of the United States.

In 2005, U.S. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a landmark agreement between the two countries on civilian nuclear energy cooperation. The deal is significant because India is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and detonated a nuclear device in 1974. The deal will greatly increase strategic and economic cooperation between the world's two largest democracies[3].

US State secretary Condoleezza Rice has signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement with Bulgaria, a new NATO member, in 2006. The treaty allows the US (not NATO) to develop as joint US-Bulgarian facilities the Bulgarian air bases at Bezmer (near Yambol) and Graf Ignatievo (near Plovdiv), the Novo Selo training range (near Sliven), and a logistics centre in Aytos, as well as to use the commercial port of Burgas. At least 2,500 US personnel will be located there. The treaty also allows the US to use the bases "for missions in tiers country without a specific authorization from Bulgarian authorities," and grants US militaries immunity from prosecution in this country [4]. Another agreement with Romania permits the US to use the Mihail Kogălniceanu base and another one nearby [4].


[edit] Relations with Latin America
Main article: United States and South and Central America
The Argentine film called Sed, Invasión Gota a Gota ("Thirst, Invasion Drop by Drop"), directed by Mausi Martínez, portrays the military of the United States as slowly but steadily increasing its presence in the Triple Frontera (Triple Frontier, the area around the common borders of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil). The overt reason for the increasing presence of U.S. troops and joint exercises, mainly with Paraguay, is to monitor the large Arab population which resides in the area. However, Martínez alleges that it is the water of the Guarani Aquifer which brings the Americans to the area, and she fears a subtle takeover before the local governments even realize what is going on.

Similar concerns were lifted following both the signature of a military training agreement with Paraguay, which accorded immunity to U.S. soldiers from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and was indefinitely renewable (something which had never been done before, while Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Paraguay and, for the first time ever, Paraguayan president Nicanor Duarte Frutos went to the White House), and the construction of a U.S. military base near the airport of Mariscal Estigarribia, within 200 km of Argentina and Bolivia and 300 km of Brazil. The airport can receive large planes (B-52, C-130 Hercules, etc.) which the Paraguayan Air Force does not possess. [5] [6]. The governments of Paraguay and the United States subsequently ostensibly declared that the use of an airport (Dr Luís María Argaña International)[1] was one point of transfer for few soldiers in Paraguay at the same time. According to the Argentine newspaper Clarín, the U.S. military base is strategic because of its location near the Triple Frontier, its proximity to the Guaraní Aquifer, and its closeness to Bolivia (less than 200 km) at the same "moment that Washington's magnifying glass goes on the Altiplano [Bolivia] and points toward Venezuelan [president] Hugo Chávez — the regional devil according to the Bush administration — as the instigator of the instability in the region" (El Clarín [6]). In October 2006, US President George W. Bush was reported to be negotiating for purchase of a 400 km² ranch near Marriscal Estigarribia [7][8].

But Paraguay decided in October 2006 not to renew the immunity granted to US soldiers. The other members of the Mercosur trade bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela) have so far refused to grant immunity to U.S. troops. All four nations have in recent years elected leftist governments critical of U.S. policy (Lula in Brazil, Nestor Kirschner in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela) [9]


[edit] Criticism and responses
US foreign policy has been heavily criticized by foreign media and spokespersons, including some of the media in allied countries such as the United Kingdom. Critics of U.S. foreign policy tend to state that the goals commonly regarded as noble were often overstated and point out what they see as contradictions between foreign policy rhetoric and actions:

The mention of peace as opposed to the long list of U.S. military involvements
The mention of freedom and democracy as opposed to the many former and current dictatorships that receive or received U.S. financial or military support, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
The mention of free trade as opposed to U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood, steel and agricultural products.
The mention of U.S. generosity as opposed to the low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries.
The mention of environment safety as opposed to the lack of support for environmental treaties (for instance the Kyoto Protocol)
The defense of human rights as opposed to the lack of ratification of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, widespread support of dictatorial governments whose military the US trains on methods of torture (notably in the infamous School of the Americas), support for terrorism, for example the Contras in Nicaragua.

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with George W. Bush inspects the Malacanang Palace Honor Guards during the latter's 8-hour State Visit to the Philippines in October 2003There are a variety of responses to these criticisms. For instance, some argue that the increased American military involvement around the world is an outgrowth of the inherent instability of the world state system as it existed in the late 19th Century. The inherent failings of this system led to the outbreak of World War I and World War II. The United States has assumed a prominent peacekeeping role, on its own terms, due to the easily demonstrable inter-state insecurity that existed before 1945.

Further, some experts have stated that since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a war to defend against an imminent threat, it was a war of aggression, and therefore under the Nuremberg Principles it constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow. For example, Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.[10] Similarly, under the U.N. Charter, ratified by the U.S. and therefore binding on it, all U.N. member states including the U.S. are prohibited from using force against fellow member states (Iraq is a member of the U.N.) except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit U.N. Security Council authorization (UN Charter; international law). "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war[11]. Despite such criticism from Bush opponents, the United Nations gave the United States and its coalition partners the legal authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, providing that Iraq would "face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Other realist critics, such as George F. Kennan, have noted that the responsibility of the United States is only to protect the rights of its own citizens, and that therefore Washington should deal with other governments on that basis alone. Realists charge that heavy emphasis on democratization or nation-building abroad was one of the major tenets of President Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic philosophy, and the failure of the League of Nations to enforce the will of the international community in the cases of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in the 1930s, as well as the inherent weakness of the new states created at the Paris Peace Conference, demonstrated the folly of Wilson's idealism.

There is also criticism of alleged human rights abuse, the most important recent examples of which are the multiple reports of alleged prisoner abuse and torture at U.S.-run detention camps in Guantánamo Bay (at "Camp X-ray") (in Cuba), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), secret CIA prisons (eastern Europe), and other places voiced by, e.g. the Council of Europe and Amnesty International. Amnesty International in its Amnesty International Report 2005 [2] says that: "the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times" [3]. This Amnesty report also claimed that there was a use of double standards in the U.S. government: the U.S. president "has repeatedly asserted that the United States was founded upon and is dedicated to the cause of human dignity". (Theme of his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2004 Sep 2004). But some memorandums emerged after the Abu Ghraib scandal "suggested that the administration was discussing ways in which its agents could avoid the international ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" [4]. Government responses to these criticisms include that Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and the network of secret CIA jails in Eastern Europe and the Middle East were largely isolated incidents and not reflective of general U.S. conduct, and at the same time maintain that coerced interrogation in Guantánamo and Europe is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.

U.S. generosity is not demonstrated in the relatively low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries. However as far as measured by goods and monetary amounts the U.S is the most generous. Religious tithes, emergency donations to relief organizations, and donations to medical research, for example, are common and frequent. The United States tax code structure is designed to further this type of charitable donation by private individuals and corporations.


[edit] Territorial disputes
The United States is involved with several territorial disputes, including maritime disputes over the Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Northwest Passage, and areas around Machias Seal Island and North Rock with Canada. [12] These disputes have become dormant recently, and are largely considered not to affect the strong relations between the two nations.

Other disputes include:

U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay is leased from Cuba and only mutual agreement or U.S. abandonment of the area can terminate the lease. Cuba contends that the lease is invalid as the Platt Amendment creating the lease was included in the Cuban Constitution under threat of force and thus is voided by article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Haiti claims Navassa Island.
U.S. has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other nation.
Marshall Islands claims Wake Island.

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

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005 [5], the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous twelve months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown marijuana continues. The U.S. believes that The Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.


[edit] Military aid
The U.S. provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia.


[edit] History of exporting democracy
Further information: Iran Freedom and Support Act
In the history of the United States, presidents have often used democracy as a justification for military intervention abroad.[13][14], although on a number of other occasions democratically elected governments were overthrown (See Operation Ajax, Operation PBSUCCESS). A number of studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Most studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the history of the United States exporting democracy.[15] Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."[16][17]

But some studies, such as a study by Tures find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[15] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[18]


[edit] U.S. intervention does not export democracy
Professor Paul W. Drake explains that the United States first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argues that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." Democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and American leaders usually defined democracy as elections only. Further the United States Department of State disapproved of any rebellion of any kind, which were often incorrectly labeled "revolutions", even against dictatorships.[19] As historian Walter LaFeber states, "The world's leading revolutionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century."[20]

Mesquita and Downs evaluate the period between 1945 to 2004. They state that the U.S. has intervened in 35 countries, and only in one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within 10 years.[21] Samia Amin Pei argues that nation building in developed countries usually begins to unravel four to six years after American intervention ends. Pei, quoting Polity, (a database on democracy in the world), agrees with Mesquita and Downs that most countries where the U.S. intervenes never becomes a democracy or becomes more authoritarian after 10 years.[22]

Professor Joshua Muravchik argues that U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after World War II, but America's failure to build democracy in the third world "prove...that U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."[23][24] The success of democracy in former Axis countries maybe because of these countries per-capita income. Steven Krasner of the CDDRL states that a high per capita income may help build a democracy, because no democratic country with a per-capita income which is above $6,000 has ever become an autocracy.[19]


[edit] U.S. intervention has mixed results
Tures examines 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. A plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy. In 69 instances the country became less democratic after the intervention. In the remaining 63 cases, a country became more democratic.[15]


[edit] U.S. intervention has exported democracy
Hermann and Kegley find that American military interventions which are designed to protect or promote democracy increase freedom in those countries.[18] Penceny argues that the democracies created after military intervetion is still closer to an autocracy than a democracy, quoting Przeworski "while some democracies are more democratic than others, unless offices are contested, no regime should be considered democratic."[25] Therefore, Penceny concludes, it is difficult to know from the Hermann and Kegley study whether U.S. intervention has only produced less repressive autocratic governments or genuine democracies.[26]

Penceny states that the United States has attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 twentieth-century military interventions.[27] Penceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.[28]


[edit] Quotes
“ No state has more consistently proclaimed its adherence to this liberal vision of the international system than the United States.[29] ”
“ Electorism is the faith (widely held by U.S. policymakers) that merely holding elections will channel political action into peaceful contests among elites and accord public legitimacy to the winners in there contests. Electorism requires that foreign or domestic elites do some political engineering to produce the most common surface manifestations of a democratic polity--parties, electoral laws, contested campaigns, and the like. Yet this sort of tinkering, however will-intended, cannot by itself produce the consensus...which must underlie any enduring democracy.[30] ”

Smedley Butler, who confessed to Congress in 1934 that he was involved in a failed military coup against the Roosevelt administration, was a popular lecturer on the left-wing circuit who claimed:

“ I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmoleste