U.S. foreign policy: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
Line 14: Line 14:
===East Asia and Pacific===
===East Asia and Pacific===
===Central Asia===
===Central Asia===
====Afghanistan====
====Afghanistan and Pakistan====
====Pakistan====
{{main|U.S. policy towards Afghanistan}}
====Near East====
{{main|U.S. policy towards Pakistan}}
In many respects, it sees this as one problem; the political geography of the area also supports the argument that the [[Durand Line]] border between the two may have been convenient for the British, but does not reflect the boundaries of the [[Pashtun people]].
===Near East===
{{main|U.S. policy towards the Middle East}}
{{main|U.S. policy towards the Middle East}}
More than in most areas in the world, policies twist and turn and involve multiple countries. Nevertheless, there are some basic principles both for the region and for countries.
More than in most areas in the world, policies twist and turn and involve multiple countries. Nevertheless, there are some basic principles both for the region and for countries.

Revision as of 01:30, 24 August 2009

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Timelines [?]
 
This editable, developed Main Article is subject to a disclaimer.
See also: History of U.S. foreign policy

Ultimate responsibility for United States foreign policy rests with the President of the United States. For the ratification of formal treaties, he or she must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate.

Formally, the senior foreign policy official is the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In practice, the critical decisionmakers are the members of the National Security Council, which includes the Secretary of State. Other major influencers are in the National Security Council staff, headed by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, James Jones. The U.S. Department of Defense, under Secretary Robert Gates, obviously has a major effect, as does the U.S. intelligence community, coordinated by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair.

Foreign policy formulation and execution is structured on regional and functional areas. Over recent years, there has been an attempt to reconcile the regional definitions of the various departments and agencies, so a country is not under one bureau of the State Department but under a different Unified Combatant Command in the military. This is not completely successful; the countries of the Mediterranean littoral as well as the Levant are under one Assistant Secretary of State, but the United States European Command is responsible for the former but the United States Central Command for the latter.

Regional

Africa

U.S African policy is principally focused on the Subsaharan part of the continent. For reasons of colonial sensitivity, the United States Africa Command is considered a unified subcommand of United States European Command.

Europe and Eurasia

East Asia and Pacific

Central Asia

Afghanistan and Pakistan

For more information, see: U.S. policy towards Afghanistan.
For more information, see: U.S. policy towards Pakistan.

In many respects, it sees this as one problem; the political geography of the area also supports the argument that the Durand Line border between the two may have been convenient for the British, but does not reflect the boundaries of the Pashtun people.

Near East

For more information, see: U.S. policy towards the Middle East.

More than in most areas in the world, policies twist and turn and involve multiple countries. Nevertheless, there are some basic principles both for the region and for countries.

Egypt

While the U.S. continues to provide major economic support to Egypt, there is increasing concern about succession, with President Hosni Mubarrak reported to be in poor health.

Iran

For more information, see: U.S. policy towards Iran.

The Obama administration avoids the military threats implied by the previous administration, by the U.S. or others. While it is giving moral encouragement to the domestic protesters following the 2009 election, it is taking time, establishing a moral position, and waiting on events. It does appear to be holding back on direct engagement at any high level.

It is quite serious about pressuring Iran to stop what is seen as a nuclear weapons program, b as the best means to accomplish this goal. Instead, a consensus is growing, with allies, to use economic warfare, targeted at Iran's lack of internal petroleum refining capacity, and thus, while ironically an oil producer, a gasoline importer. [1]

Iraq

For more information, see: U.S. policy towards Iraq.
See also: Iraq War

Israel

Lebanon

Syria

South and Central Asia

Western Hemisphere Affairs

Functional

A number of these areas will definitely involve more agencies than the Department of State.

  • International Organization Affairs (IO)

Security

Economic

Democracy promotion and information

Cultural

  • Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA)

Law enforcement, including drug trade

Human Rights

  • Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)
  • Global Women's Issues (S/GWI)

Science

References

  1. "Obama considers Iran gas cut-off", United Press International, 3 August 2009