a)Describe America's unilateralist foregin policy using three different examples. b) Explain why there is hope

Question

a)Describe America's unilateralist foregin policy using three different examples. b) Explain why there is hope that this foreign policy could change in the future

Answer 1

This sounds like a homework question.

Answer 2

Americas unilateralist foreign policy is designed to use their status as the world's only Superpower to tell the world what they should do to keep the US happy & if a country doesn't agree with that they might get invaded. This is also the Neocon foreign policy philosphy that has been such a disaster for the US (Iraq being the perfect example). If the US continues this unilaterist foreign policy there will be no hope whatsoever because the entire world will hate the US. Sharing responsibility with other great powers of the world or multilateralism is a much better path the follow especially because no one will blame just one country.

Answer 3

First, your question is leading because it assumes that unilateralism is universally negative. Any hegemony in a unipolar system acts a great deal of the time by itself. It's the problem of being a reluctant sheriff. Whether discussing current American superiority or the past hegemonies of England, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Rome, etc., it is clear (and logical) that the most powerful state do what it must to defend its position.

a) Three examples:
-2003 War in Iraq: Almost universally condemned however it was still fought due to ideological beliefs and the perception of a moral imperative by the President of the United States.
-Refusal to sign most international treaties. This is generally a good thing as the majority of the treaties would unduly burden the US. That being said, it also reveals a streak of unilateralism and independence in US foreign policy.
-The Marshall Plan. Post-WW2 reconstruction of Western Europe was funded almost exclusively by America. The objective was to build Europe up so that communism would not encroach. It showed unilateralism because a) we paid for it and b) it pursued ideological objectives unique at the time to the US.

b) Why is there "hope" that this foreign policy could change?

-As US military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan have reduced US military preparedness, it has become obvious that the US cannot act by itself in every theater of operations.
Improved diplomacy and sharing of responsibility are essential to future conflicts to ensure that the US does not assume a disproportionate share of the duty.
-Increased globalization and trade have forced the US, and all other countries, to enter into more international treaties (CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, etc).
-Increasingly transnational component of threats (terrorism, climate change, disease, etc) means that the US can be challenged by other countries who fail to act sufficiently against the problems that threaten their states. Cooperation is vital to ensure that the problems of failed states and underdeveloped countries do not evolve into the problems of the Us.

Answer 4

America does not have a "unilateralist" foreign policy. This is why you might be having trouble answering this question.

We have official and active diplomatic relations with almost every nation on earth.

We give aid of some kind to almost every nation on earth, including being the biggest and often the first responder to natural disasters throughout the world.

We are the inventors of both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

We are the ones who came up with NATO and rebuilt Europe and Asia in the 40s and 50s.

When we invaded Iraq, we had more than 30 nations acting in concert with us.

Bush refused to sit down with North Korea alone, and instead opted for 6-party talks, calling NK an Asian problem and involving Asia's neighbors.

Bush is also supportive of NAFTA and tried getting support for CAFTA, both are open trade treaties with North American countries.

The second part of your question is an exercise in fiction, so it really doesn't warrant an answer.

Answer 5

1. America's policy position on Iraq on the run up to the war
2. America's refusal to open diplomatic channels to Syria
3. America's refusal to open diplomatic
channels to Iran
4. America's refusal to have direct diplomatic talks with North Korea.

The hope lies in the reality, we cannot continue to be a superpower and refuse to talk to our enemies as well as countries we disagree with. The world as we know it spins on it's axis through diplomacy and commerce in this global economy. Isolating ourselves from the discussion will prove shortsighted and marginalize American interests, leaving us in a non-competitive position. The discussions will move forward, decisions will be made and action will be taken, regardless. Unless we plan to dwell on the other side of the world due to personality conflicts and political agendas, we need to have are best and brightest talent at the table.

Answer 6

Sorry, but I am losing the tiny bit of hope I have left, as these boards show a huge majority of Americans are WILfully ignorant and the society we live in strives to make sure they STAY that way...

Without a serious change in IMPERIALIST US foreign policy, we WILL go the way of all imperialist nations historically. The only question is when.

Are you trying to get people to do your homework for you? sure sounds like it and if so, it's not real courageous of you.

Answer 7

His foreign places coverage is slightly radical. Do liberals somewhat stay out of people's corporation? (Ron Paul has stated at debates that u . s . a . of america needs to recommendations its very own corporation) I want the democrats and liberals could stay out of our well-known lives, they like to assert they do yet enforce this sort of great form of rules on us that they act like they desire to dictate how each and every physique lives. looks hypocritical to me. basically seem at San Francisco and something of California, they have this sort of great form of rules that i do no longer even think of they be attentive to what they are anymore! So how the libs, democrats and a few independents say "Ya shall we recommendations are very own corporation" appears like solid suggestion to me! even nevertheless, Ron Paul is beginning up a can of worms, he will carry the terrorists into our very own outdoor by enjoying incredible guy, and that i somewhat have self belief Paul is a incredible guy. even nevertheless I dont be attentive to if it is the appropriate tactic against people who desire to confirm u . s . a . of america fall. right here comes the thumbs down. lol

Answer 8

American people lack the understanding of foreign policy ---it was kept secret from us by elite---that they can do their deeds without oppositions---media helped in that too.


our media is filtered by organizations like AIPAC

the only hope is alot more media sources and banning AIPAC

Answer 9

b) There is no hope. "Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?" Proverbs 27:4

Answer 10

Still upset about Al Gore?