imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
|
| (29 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
| {{TOC|right}} | | {{TOC|right}} |
| '''U.S. foreign policy''' covers the foreign relations and diplomacy of the United States since 1775. Responsibility is held by the president, the Secretary of State and the [[U.S. Department of State]], the [[National Security Council]], and other agencies such as the departments of Defense and the Treasury.
| | {{seealso|History of U.S. foreign policy}} |
| ==American Revolution to 1800==
| | Ultimate responsibility for '''United States foreign policy''' rests with the [[President of the United States of America]]. For the ratification of formal treaties, he or she must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate. |
| American foreign affairs from independence in 1776 to the new Constitution in 1789 were handled under the [[Articles of Confederation]] directly by Congress until the creation of a department of foreign affairs and the office of secretary for foreign affairs on January 10, 1781.
| |
|
| |
|
| The cabinet-level '''Department of Foreign Affairs''' was created on July 27, 1789, by the First Congress. Because of the need to provide for the administration of "home affairs," and the reluctance of Congress to add a fourth department, Congress in September 1789, changed the name to the [[United States Department of State]] and changed the title of secretary for foreign affairs to secretary of state.
| | In the modern practice of foreign policy, formally, the senior foreign policy official below the President 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 [[United States intelligence community]], coordinated by [[Director of National Intelligence]] [[Dennis Blair]]. |
|
| |
|
| ==Early National Era: 1800-1860==
| | 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. |
| ==Late 19th Century==
| |
| ==1898-1945==
| |
|
| |
|
| ===1933-39: Isolation=== | | Foreign policy also needs to be considered in relation to the U.S. and world situation of the time. |
| The rejection of the [[League of Nations]] treaty in 1919 marked the dominance of [[isolationism]] from world organizations in American foreign policy. Despite Roosevelt's Wilsonian background, he and [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[Cordell Hull]] acted with great care not to provoke isolationist sentiment. Roosevelt's "bombshell" message to the world monetary conference in 1933 effectively ended any major efforts by the world powers to collaborate on ending the worldwide depression, and allowed Roosevelt a free hand in economic policy.
| | ==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=== |
| | [[North Korea]] is the hot spot, and the U.S. regional priority is to insist on the [[Six-Party Talks]], which also recognize China as a key broker. |
| | ===Near 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. |
| | ====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==== |
| | {{main|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. |
|
| |
|
| The main foreign policy initiative of Roosevelt's first term was the [[Good Neighbor Policy]], which was a re-evaluation of U.S. policy towards [[Latin America]]. Since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. American forces were withdrawn from [[Haiti]], and new treaties with [[Cuba, history|Cuba]] and [[Panama]] ended their status as protectorates. In December 1933, Roosevelt signed the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, renouncing the right to intervene unilaterally in the affairs of Latin American countries.
| | 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. <ref name=UPI3009-08-03>{{citation |
| | | title = Obama considers Iran gas cut-off |
| | | journal = United Press International |
| | | url = http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/03/Report-Obama-considers-Iran-gas-cut-off/UPI-42911249301096/ |
| | | date = 3 August 2009}}</ref> |
| | ====Iraq==== |
| | {{main|U.S. policy towards Iraq}} |
| | {{seealso|Iraq War}} |
| | ====Israel==== |
| | ====Lebanon==== |
| | ====Syria==== |
|
| |
|
| The rise to power of [[Adolf Hitler]] in Germany in 1933 aroused fears of a new world war. In 1935, at the time of Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. Roosevelt opposed the act on the grounds that it penalized the victims of aggression such as Ethiopia, and that it restricted his right as President to assist friendly countries, but public support was overwhelming so he signed it. In 1937, Congress passed an even more stringent act, but when the Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1937, public opinion favored China, and Roosevelt found various ways to assist that nation.
| | ===South and Central Asia=== |
|
| |
|
| In October 1937, Roosevelt gave the "Quarantine Speech" aiming to contain aggressor nations, that is, Japan, Germany and Italy. He proposed that warmongering states be treated as a public health menace and be "quarantined." <ref> See [http://www.vlib.us/amdocs/texts/fdrquarn.html for text]</ref>Meanwhile he secretly stepped up a program to build long range submarines that could blockade Japan. In the summer of 1938, sensing war would come, Roosevelt began preparations for hemispheric defense and arms production; he asked for far more airplanes than the Air Corps had envisioned.
| | ====Afghanistan and Pakistan==== |
| | {{main|U.S. policy towards Afghanistan}} |
| | {{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]]. |
| | ===Western Hemisphere Affairs=== |
|
| |
|
| ===1939-45: World War II=== | | ==Functional== |
| When [[World War II]] broke out in September, 1939, Roosevelt rejected the Wilsonian neutrality stance (of being neutral in thought and deed), and made it clear that America detested Nazi aggression. Isolationist sentiment remained strong, however, forcing FDR to find new ways to assist Britain and France militarily. The great majority of Americans opposed Japan and agreed with FDR's efforts to provide military aid to China.
| | A number of these areas will definitely involve more agencies than the Department of State. |
| | * International Organization Affairs (IO) |
| | ===Security=== |
| | *[[Counterterrorism]] |
| | * [[Peace operations]] |
| | * [[Arms Control]] |
| | * International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) |
| | ===Economic=== |
| | * Foreign assistance |
| | * Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs(E) |
| | * Economic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB) |
| | *[[National Marine Fisheries Service]] |
| | ===Democracy promotion and information=== |
| | * Democracy and Global Affairs (G) |
| | * Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R) |
| | * International Information Programs (IIP) |
| | *[[Propaganda]]; [[Voice of America]]; [[Broadcasting Board of Governors]], psychological operations staff, National Clandestine Service, [[Central Intelligence Agency]] |
| | ===Cultural=== |
| | * Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) |
| | ===Law enforcement, including drug trade=== |
| | * International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) |
| | * [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] |
| | * [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] |
| | * War Crimes Issues (S/WCI) |
| | * Office of Special Investigations, [[U.S. Department of Justice]] |
| | ===Human Rights=== |
| | * Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) |
| | * Global Women's Issues (S/GWI) |
| | ===Science=== |
| | * Global AIDS Coordinator, Office of (S/GAC) |
| | * Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) |
| | * [[National Science Foundation]] |
| | * [[National Institutes of Health]] |
| | * [[Centers for Disease Control]] |
| | * [[National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration]] |
| | ==Doctrines== |
| | {{r|Monroe Doctrine}} |
| | {{r|Containment policy}} |
| | {{r|American exceptionalism}} |
| | ===Nuclear deterrence=== |
| | ===Counterinsurgency=== |
| | {{seealso|Vietnam, war, and the United States of America}} |
| | While the U.S. had dealt with insurgencies well before World War II, the situation increased significantly in the Cold War. The 1940 U.S. Marine Corps ''Manual for Small Wars'' remains a reference based on experience in Latin America and elsewhere. |
|
| |
|
| Roosevelt turned to [[Harry Hopkins]] for foreign policy advice; Hopkins became his chief wartime adviser. Bypassing the State Department, FDR and Hopkins sought innovative ways to help Britain, whose financial resources were exhausted by the end of 1940. Congress, where isolationist sentiment was in retreat, passed the [[Lend-Lease Act]] in March 1941, allowing the U.S. to "lend" huge amounts of military equipment in return for "leases" on British naval bases in the Western Hemisphere. In sharp contrast to the loans of World War I, there would be no repayment after the war. Roosevelt was a lifelong free trader and anti-imperialist, and ending European colonialism was one of his objectives. Roosevelt forged a close personal relationship with [[Winston Churchill]], who became Prime Minister of Britain in May 1940.
| | In Vietnam, which combined both insurgency and proxy war, the U.S. struggled to find an effective counterinsurgency strategy, eventually refocused on conventional military action, and left the country, which was overthrown by a conventional invasion. |
|
| |
|
| In May 1940, Germany overran Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and finally France, leaving Britain vulnerable to invasion. Roosevelt, who was determined to defend Britain, took advantage of the rapid shifts of public opinion. A consensus was clear that military spending had to be dramatically expanded. There was no consensus on how much the U.S. should risk war in helping Britain. FDR replaced his cautious war and navy secretaries with pro-war interventionist Republican leaders, [[Henry L. Stimson]] and [[Frank Knox]], as Secretaries of War and the Navy respectively. The fall of Paris shocked American opinion, and isolationist sentiment declined. Both parties gave support to his plans to rapidly build up the American military, but the isolationists warned that Roosevelt would get the nation into an unnecessary war with Germany. He successfully urged Congress to enact the first peacetime draft in American history in 1940 (it was renewed in 1941 by one vote in Congress). Roosevelt was supported by the [[Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies]], and opposed by the isolationist [[America First Committee]].
| | Counterinsurgency (COIN) is alive and well in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is a distinct split among soldier-statesmen as to the correct balance among [[counterterrorism]], "conventional" military forces, and [[counterinsurgency]] to include [[peace operations#nation-building|nation-building]]. Among the best-known counterinsurgents are General [[David Petraeus]]. Petraeus' doctoral dissertation dealt with U.S. policy toward Vietnam, <ref name=PetPhD>{{citation |
| | | url = http://www.brianbeutler.com/postvietnameramilitary.pdf |
| | | title = The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A study of military influence and the use of force in the post-Vietnam era |
| | | publisher = doctoral dissertation, Princeton University |
| | | year = 1987 |
| | }}</ref> a far more active role, than traditional for generals, in developing the Army doctrinal manual on counterinsurgency. <ref name = FM3-24>{{citation | publisher = US Department of the Army |
| | | author = [[John Nagl]], David Petraeus, [[James Amos]], [[Sarah Sewall]] |
| | | title = [[Field Manual 3-24: Counterinsurgency]] |
| | | date = December 2006 |
| | | url = http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf}}</ref> |
|
| |
|
| Roosevelt used his personal charisma to build support for intervention. America should be the "Arsenal of Democracy," he told his fireside audience. In August, Roosevelt's "Destroyers for Bases Agreement" traded 50 old American destroyers to Britain in exchange for base rights in the British Atlantic islands. This was a precursor of the March 1941 "[[Lend-Lease]]" agreement which began to direct massive military and economic aid to Britain, the China and the Soviet Union.
| | Sometimes informally called the "COINdanistas", this is an influential school of thought that blends political, social and military strategies. The [[Center for a New American Security]], a strategic think tank, has many of its principals in the Obama Administration. Petraeus, now the U.S. commander for the Middle East, has used advisers including David Kilcullen and [[H.R. McMaster]], known for open criticism of policies, even while advising. <ref name=WP2007-02-05>{{citation |
| | | title = Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort |
| | | first = [[Thomas Ricks]] |
| | | journal = Washington Post | date = February 5, 2007 |
| | | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401196.html}}</ref> |
|
| |
|
| After reelection in 1940, with much of Europe under German domination, Roosevelt cautiously prepared for war by extending the Atlantic neutrality zone, pushing the Lend-Lease Act through Congress, and drawing plans for an enlarged army. Roosevelt used the German submarine attacks on the American destroyer "Greer" on 4 September 1941 and the U-boat torpedoing of the destroyer "Kearny" on 16-17 October 1941 as pretexts to extend naval warfare in the Atlantic without congressional approval or the repeal of neutrality legislation. Through the fall of 1941, Roosevelt continued to plan and assemble the necessary military force to combat Hitler, although he never terminated diplomatic relations with Germany and never intended to appeal to Congress for a declaration of war. While there may have been miscalculations, Roosevelt did not provoke the attack on Pearl Harbor as a means of getting into war with Germany.
| | [[Andrew Bacevich]] is a critic of what he regards as an overemphasis on [[counterinsurgency]] in the U.S. military, which he sees as a revisionist belief that the [[Vietnam War]] could have been won with the right long-term approach, which he terms that of the "Crusaders" for the new view. He sees a more appropriate lesson as the "Conservative" one from the [[Weinberger-Powell Doctrine]]. <ref name=Atlantic2008-10>{{citation |
| | | | date = October 2008 | journal = Atlantic |
| Roosevelt's third term was dominated by World War II, in Europe and in the [[Pacific War|Pacific]]. Roosevelt slowly began re-armament in 1938 since he was facing strong isolationist sentiment from leaders like Senators [[William Borah]] and [[Robert Taft]] who supported re-armament. By 1940, it was in high gear, with bipartisan support, partly to expand and re-equip the Army and Navy and partly to become the "Arsenal of Democracy" supporting Britain, France, China and (after June 1941), the Soviet Union. As Roosevelt took a firmer stance against the [[Axis Powers]], American isolationists—including [[Charles Lindbergh]] and [[America First]]—attacked the President as an irresponsible warmonger. Unfazed by these criticisms and confident in the wisdom of his foreign policy initiatives, FDR continued his twin policies of preparedness and aid to the Allied coalition. On December 29, 1940, he delivered his Arsenal of Democracy fireside chat, in which he made the case for involvement directly to the American people, and a week later he delivered his famous [[Four Freedoms]] speech in January 1941, further laying out the case for an American defense of basic rights throughout the world.
| | | title = The Petraeus Doctrine: Iraq-style counterinsurgency is fast becoming the U.S. Army’s organizing principle. Is our military preparing to fight the next war, or the last one? |
| | | | author = [[Andrew Bacevich]] |
| Germany and the Soviet Union had been allied in 1939-41, so American Communists demanded neutrality and no aid to Britain; they opposed FDR's reelection in 1940. Increasingly the conservative Republican business and professional community in the Northeast rallied behind Britain, and supported Roosevelt's efforts to aid the British war effort.
| | | url = http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/petraeus-doctrine}}</ref> He favors a "defensive strategy" of "containment." <ref name=Nation>{{citation |
| | | |url = http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/350252/obama_s_limits_an_interview_with_andrew_bacevich |
| When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, Roosevelt extended Lend-Lease to the Soviets. During 1941, Roosevelt also agreed that the U.S. Navy would escort British convoys as far east as Britain and would fire upon German ships or submarines if they attacked Allied shipping within the U.S. Navy zone. Moreover, by 1941, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers were secretly ferrying British fighter planes between Britain and the Mediterranean war zones, and the British Royal Navy was receiving supply and repair assistance at American naval bases.
| | | title = Obama's Limits: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich | journal = [[The Nation (magazine)]] |
| | | | author = Jon Wiener | date = 28 August 2008}}</ref> Colonel [[Gian Gentile]] is concerned with a decline in conventional military forces, although Gentile recognizes the conventional enemy is not the mass of the Soviet Union. |
| Thus, by mid-1941, Roosevelt had committed the U.S. to the Allied side with a policy of "all aid short of war." Roosevelt met with Churchill in August 1941, to write the [[Atlantic Charter]] in what was to be the first of several wartime conferences. The War Department's "Victory Program," provided the President with the estimates necessary for the total mobilization of manpower, industry, and logistics to defeat Germany and Japan.<ref>Mark Skinner Watson, ''Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Preparations,'' (1950), 331-366 at [http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/csppp/ch11.htm online] </ref> The program also planned to dramatically increase aid to the Allied nations and to have ten million men in arms, half of whom would be ready for deployment abroad in 1943. Roosevelt was firmly committed to the Allied cause.
| |
| | |
| ==1945-1969: Cold War==
| |
| {{main|Cold War}}
| |
| | |
| * [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
| |
| * [[Vietnam War]]
| |
| ===Truman: 1945-53===
| |
| {{seealso|Marshall Plan}}
| |
| {{seealso|Berlin Blockade}}
| |
| {{seealso|Korean War}}
| |
| [[Harry S. Truman]] had no knowledge or interest in foreign policy before becoming president in April 1945, and depended on the State Department for foreign policy advice. By 1946 he had two valuable aides [[Clark Clifford]] and George Elsey.
| |
| | |
| Truman shifted from FDR's détente to [[containment]] as soon as [[Dean Acheson]] convinced him the Soviet Union was a long-term threat to American interests. They viewed communism as a secular, millennial religion that informed the Kremlin's worldview and actions and made it the chief threat to American security, liberty, and world peace. They rejected the moral equivalence of democratic and Communist governments and concluded that until the regime in Moscow changed only American and Allied strength could curb the Soviets. Following Acheson's advice, Truman in 1947 announced the [[Truman Doctrine]] of containing Communist expansion by furnishing military and economic American aid to Europe and Asia, and particularly to Greece and Turkey. He followed up with the [[Marshall Plan]], which was enacted into law as the European Recovery Program (ERP) and pumped $12.4 into the European economy, forcing the breakdown of old barriers and encouraging modernization along American lines. On May 14, 1948, Truman announced recognition of the new state of [[Israel]], making the United States the first major power to do so.
| |
| | |
| After his surprise reelection in 1948, Truman brought in [[Dean Acheson]] as Secretary of State, and promoted the Point Four program of aid to underdeveloped countries. The policy of containing Communism was operationalized by the creation, in 1949, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ([[NATO]]) to oversee the integration of the military forces of its member nations in Western Europe and North America. A further step was taken in 1951 with the establishment of the Mutual Security Agency to coordinate U.S. economic, technical and military aid abroad.
| |
| | |
| The [[Korean War]] began at the end of June 1950 when North Korea, a Communist country, invaded South Korea, which was under U.S. protection. Without consulting Congress Truman ordered General [[Douglas MacArthur]] to use all American forces to resist the invasion. Truman then received approval from the United Nations, which the Soviets were boycotting. UN forces managed to cling to a toehold in Korea, as the North Koreans outran their supply system. A counterattack at Inchon destroyed the invasion army, and the UN forces captured most of North Korea on their way to the Yalu River, Korea's northern border with China. Truman defined the war goal as rollback of Communism and reunification of the country under UN auspices. China intervened unexpectedly, drove the UN forces all the way back to South Korea. The fighting stabilized close to the original 38th parallel that had divided North and South. MacArthur wanted to continue the rollback strategy but Truman arrived at a new policy of containment, allowing North Korea to persist. Truman's dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur in April 1951 sparked a violent debate on U.S. Far Eastern policy, as Truman took the blame for a high-cost stalemate with 37,000 Americans killed and over 100,000 wounded.
| |
| | |
| Policies in the [[NSC-68]] document of 1950 policy paper was the grounds for escalating the Cold War, especially in terms of tripling spending on rearmament and building the hydrogen bomb. The integration of European defense was given new impetus by continued U.S. support of NATO, under the command of General Eisenhower.
| |
| | |
| ==1969 to 1989==
| |
| ===Nixon and Kissinger: 1969-77===
| |
| Kissinger's first priority in office was the achievement of détente with the Soviet Union and China, and playing them off against each other. Recognizing and accepting the Soviet Union as a superpower, Nixon and Kissinger sought both to maintain U.S. military strength and to inaugurate peaceful economic, cultural, and scientific exchanges to engage the Soviet Union in the international system. This policy flourished under Kissinger's direction and led in 1972 to the signing of the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I). At the same time they successfully engineered a rapprochement with Communist [[China]], leading to the astonishing news in 1971 that Nixon would visit China, which he and Kissinger did in 1972.<ref> Margaret Macmillan, ''Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World'' (2008)</ref>
| |
| | |
| Aware that China and the Soviet Union were at sword's point, with rival claims to be the true Communists, Nixon and Kissinger used the "Soviet card" to win over Chinba by playing up the Soviet threat to the Chinese as a way of promoting closer relations with China. He even hinted at a US-China alliance to oppose the Soviets, and, with Nixon's trips to Moscow, hinted that China had better come to terms lest the US form an alliance with Moscow. The tactics worked, resulting in a friendly relationship with both Beijing and Moscow. As part of the détente, both powers reduced or ended their aid to North Vietnam, thus allowing a settlement of the [[Vietnam War]].<ref>Evelyn Goh, "Nixon, Kissinger, and the 'Soviet Card' in the U.S. Opening to China, 1971-1974." ''Diplomatic History'' 2005 29(3): 475-502. </ref>
| |
| | |
| ====Vietnam====
| |
| Nixon and Kissinger worked to achieve a disengagement of U.S. forces fighting in Vietnam. Balancing a policy of "Vietnamization," aimed at returning the burden of actual combat to the South Vietnamese, with repeated shows of U.S. air strength, notably in the bombings of Cambodia and Hanoi, Kissinger met secretly with North Vietnamese leaders in Paris from 1969 on, finally concluding a cease-fire in January 1973, for which he and chief North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho were awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize.
| |
| ====Middle East====
| |
| One challenge to détente came with the outbreak of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Faced with a threat of Soviet intervention, Nixon put U.S. military forces be placed on worldwide alert. He then employed shuttle diplomacy to secure cease-fires between Israel and the Arab states and to restore U.S. Egyptian diplomatic ties, broken since 1967.
| |
| | |
| ==== Latin America====
| |
| The Nixon administration sought to protect the economic and commercial interests of the United States during a period of heightened Latin American nationalism and expropriations, 1969-74. Though the administration initially adopted a flexible policy toward Latin American governments that nationalized American corporations' assets, the influence of Nixon's economic ideology, domestic political pressures, and the advice of his close adviser, Secretary of the Treasury [[John Connally]], led to a more confrontational stance toward Latin American countries. As the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and Henry Kissinger had warned, however, Latin American countries took an even more anti-US stance and expropriated even more assets. Nixon's "get tough" stance, therefore, had a negative effect on US credibility and influence in the hemisphere.<ref>Hal Brands, "Richard Nixon and Economic Nationalism in Latin America: the Problem of Expropriations, 1969-1974." ''Diplomacy & Statecraft'' 2007 18(1): 215-235. Issn: 0959-2296 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>
| |
| | |
| Kissinger and Nixon permitted covert [[CIA]] operations designed to destabilize the anti-American Allende regime in [[Chile, history|Chile]]
| |
| ====South Asia====
| |
| During the South Asian crisis in 1971, the White House, stood firmly behind Pakistani president Yahya Khan and demonstrated a disdain for India and particularly its leader, [[Indira Gandhi]] because of India's tilt toward the Soviet Union. Many analysts believed that Pakistan's role as a conduit of rapprochement with China and Kissinger's focus on geopolitical concerns greatly influenced the American policy decision in 1971. These claims have now been confirmed by recently declassified documents. The US undertook at least three initiatives to dissipate the Bangladesh movement but which backfired and contributed to the bloodshed instead of bringing it to an end.
| |
| | |
| Nixon and Kissinger were "realists" who deemphasized idealistic goals like anti-communism or promotion of democracy worldwide, because those goals were too expensive in terms of America's economic capabilities. Instead of a Cold War they wanted peace, trade and cultural exchanges. They realized that Americans were no longer willing to tax themselves for idealistic foreign policy goals, especially for containment policies that never seemed to produce positive results. Instead Nixon and Kissinger sought to downsize America's global commitments in proportion to its reduced economic, moral and political power. They rejected "idealism" as impractical and too expensive; neither man showed much sensitivity to the plight of people living under Communism. Kissinger's realism fell out of fashion as idealism returned to American foreign policy with Carter's moralism emphasizing human rights, and Reagan's rollback strategy aimed at destroying Communism.
| |
| | |
| ====Ford years====
| |
| Nixon resigned in 1974 under the threat of impeachment and was succeeded by [[Gerald R. Ford]], who kept Nixon's policies. The US was not involved in 1975 when North Vietnam invaded and defeated South Vietnam, except to rescue Americans and some Vietnamese supporters. Over a million Vietnamese refugees, and many Hmong from Cambodia, eventually came to the U.S.
| |
| | |
| In 1976 Ford was challenged by [[Ronald Reagan]] for the GOP nomination. Ford won, but the détente policy was the focus of Reagan's attacks, as the GOP moved to the right. [[Jimmy Carter]] continued the détente policy until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979 destroyed that policy and reopened the [[Cold War]] at a more intense level.
| |
| ===Jimmy Carter 1977-81===
| |
| ===Ronald Reagan and George G.W. Bush 1981-93===
| |
| Reagan defeated Carter in 1980 by stressing the failures of both foreign and domestic policy, warning America had become weak at home and abroad. Rejecting detente he called for rollback of the decrepit Soviet Empire, whose only strength was in missile power but which was falling apart in terms of economics, politics and society.
| |
| ====Ending the Cold War==== | |
| What scholars label the "orthodox view" of the end of the Cold War is that "the Soviet Union's capitulation and the Cold War victory for the forces of freedom and democracy were ultimately due to the relentless application of the West's military superiority and the dynamism of its ideas and economic system. These factors revealed communism's moral illegitimacy and highlighted its economic stagnation." <ref>Salla and Summy, p 3</ref> It is broadly endorsed by both Republicans (who emphasize Reagan's role), and by Democrats (who emphasize the containment policies of [[Harry S. Truman]], [[John F. Kennedy]], and [[Lyndon Johnson]].
| |
| | |
| European leaders of the 1980s give credit to Reagan for winning the Cold War. [[Lech Wałęsa]], leader of the [[Solidarity]] movement in Poland, said in 2004, "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989." <ref> Quoted in [http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005204]</ref> Helmut Kohl, chancellor of [[West Germany]], said, "He was a stroke of luck for the world. Two years after Reagan called on [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] to tear down the wall, he noted, it fell and 11 months later Germany was reunified. We Germans have much to thank Ronald Reagan for." Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said, "President Reagan was a determined opponent of Communism and he played an important role in bringing an end to Communism and to the artificial division of Europe imposed after the Second World War." [[Václav Havel]], who became the Czech president in 1989, said, "He was a man of firm principles who was indisputably instrumental in the fall of Communism." <ref> Quotes at [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1227784,00.html]</ref>
| |
| | |
| Liberals were aghast at Reagan's foreign policy, because it pushed idealism and moralism in dangerous directions. Fearing that rollback would lead to war, one critic ridiculed it as "crackpot moralism." Liberals preferred a foreign policy that pursued the national interest -- by pulling back from a preoccupation with the Soviet threat, reducing military expenditure, relying on increased cooperation with our allies, establishing more constructive links to the Third World, restricting the freedom of multinational capital, deemphasizing nuclear weapons, and deepening detente with the Soviet Union.<ref> Alan Wolfe, "Crackpot Moralism, Neo-Realism and U.S. Foreign Policy." ''World Policy Journal.'' 3#2 (1986) pp 252-75 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95721797 online edition] </ref>
| |
| ====Relations with Britain====
| |
| Relations with Britain had been strained since the Suez crisis of 1956. Now both countries were led by like-minded leaders who collaborated closely, Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] and Reagan. Their collaboration was based on a striking convergence of ideologically driven conservatives who shared similar domestic agendas and a common foreign policy. Both led domestic political revolutions--supply-side economics, increased defense spending, privatization, deregulation, and an overall conservative agenda. Reagan was the "Great Communicator", Thatcher the "Iron Lady". The two became personal friends.
| |
| | |
| Strains erupted in 1982 when the U.S. tried to mediate a dispute between Britain and Argentina over ownership of the [[Falkland Islands]], located in the south Atlantic Ocean, far from Britain and close to Argentina. When mediation failed, the U.S. supported Britain by quietly providing logistical support and military intelligence during the three-month conflict. In 1983 Thatcher criticized Reagan's intervention in Genada, nominally part of the British Commonwealth.
| |
| | |
| Reagan and Thatcher's mutual trust strengthened Reagan's hand against the Soviet Union. In 1984 Thatcher became the first NATO leader to meet with [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] before his ascension to the Soviet presidency. She told the world, "We can do business together." That assessment shifted Western political rhetoric from East-West confrontation to conciliation and support for internal democratic reform in the Soviet Union. Reagan adopted Thatcher's view, and when Gorbachev started to dismantle the Soviet Empire Reagan largely abandoning his own harsh depiction of the Soviet Union as the "focus of evil in the modern world." The collapse of the Soviet Union, however, lessened U.S. military need for a trusty friend in Europe. Thus, American relations with Britain turned more to trade and economic issues.
| |
| | |
| ===Clinton 1993-2001===
| |
| ===Bush 2001-2008===
| |
| | |
| ==1989 to present==
| |
| | |
| | |
| ==Online resources==
| |
| * [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684(200311)72%3A4%3C495%3ABATCCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I ''Foreign Relations of the United States'' (FRUS), 1861-1960, 372 volumes complete text. This series is the official documentary historical record of U.S. foreign policy decisions]
| |
| ==References== | | ==References== |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
- See also: History of U.S. foreign policy
Ultimate responsibility for United States foreign policy rests with the President of the United States of America. For the ratification of formal treaties, he or she must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate.
In the modern practice of foreign policy, formally, the senior foreign policy official below the President 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 United States 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.
Foreign policy also needs to be considered in relation to the U.S. and world situation of the time.
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
North Korea is the hot spot, and the U.S. regional priority is to insist on the Six-Party Talks, which also recognize China as a key broker.
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
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.
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
Doctrines
Nuclear deterrence
Counterinsurgency
- See also: Vietnam, war, and the United States of America
While the U.S. had dealt with insurgencies well before World War II, the situation increased significantly in the Cold War. The 1940 U.S. Marine Corps Manual for Small Wars remains a reference based on experience in Latin America and elsewhere.
In Vietnam, which combined both insurgency and proxy war, the U.S. struggled to find an effective counterinsurgency strategy, eventually refocused on conventional military action, and left the country, which was overthrown by a conventional invasion.
Counterinsurgency (COIN) is alive and well in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is a distinct split among soldier-statesmen as to the correct balance among counterterrorism, "conventional" military forces, and counterinsurgency to include nation-building. Among the best-known counterinsurgents are General David Petraeus. Petraeus' doctoral dissertation dealt with U.S. policy toward Vietnam, [2] a far more active role, than traditional for generals, in developing the Army doctrinal manual on counterinsurgency. [3]
Sometimes informally called the "COINdanistas", this is an influential school of thought that blends political, social and military strategies. The Center for a New American Security, a strategic think tank, has many of its principals in the Obama Administration. Petraeus, now the U.S. commander for the Middle East, has used advisers including David Kilcullen and H.R. McMaster, known for open criticism of policies, even while advising. [4]
Andrew Bacevich is a critic of what he regards as an overemphasis on counterinsurgency in the U.S. military, which he sees as a revisionist belief that the Vietnam War could have been won with the right long-term approach, which he terms that of the "Crusaders" for the new view. He sees a more appropriate lesson as the "Conservative" one from the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine. [5] He favors a "defensive strategy" of "containment." [6] Colonel Gian Gentile is concerned with a decline in conventional military forces, although Gentile recognizes the conventional enemy is not the mass of the Soviet Union.
References
- ↑ "Obama considers Iran gas cut-off", United Press International, 3 August 2009
- ↑ The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A study of military influence and the use of force in the post-Vietnam era, doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1987
- ↑ John Nagl, David Petraeus, James Amos, Sarah Sewall (December 2006), Field Manual 3-24: Counterinsurgency, US Department of the Army
- ↑ "Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort", Washington Post, February 5, 2007
- ↑ Andrew Bacevich (October 2008), "The Petraeus Doctrine: Iraq-style counterinsurgency is fast becoming the U.S. Army’s organizing principle. Is our military preparing to fight the next war, or the last one?", Atlantic
- ↑ Jon Wiener (28 August 2008), "Obama's Limits: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich", The Nation (magazine)
