Foreign relations of the usa

 

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. 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. All of these statements are the targets of many critcisms from various sources, some of which are listed below. Contents 1 Decision-making 2 Brief history 3 Diplomatic relations 4 Allies 5 Special relationship with Britain 6 Criticism and responses 7 Territorial disputes 8 Illicit drugs 9 Military aid 10 History of exporting democracy 10.1 U.S. intervention does not export democracy 10.2 U.S. intervention has mixed results 10.3 Quotes 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.

United States of America This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the United States Federal government Constitution President Vice President Cabinet Congress Senate President President pro tem Majority Leader Minority Leader House Speaker Majority Leader Minority Leader Congressional districts Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Minor parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns

 

Brief history 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 trying to control Mexico, but after that, 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.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President George W. Bush

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.

The United States entered World War II in 1941, again on the Allied side, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and the subsequent declaration of war against the U.S. by Germany and 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 over throw 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, partly based on its re-declaration of the "War on Drugs." In the 1980's the U.S. declared a "war on terror" and operated campaigns in Central America which in 1986 led to the World Court conviction of international terrorism by the US against Nicaragua. In 1991, the United States 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 second "War on Terror," under which it has led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
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). It is believed that the U.S. has never applied for membership, nor would such an application be forthcoming in the future.

Diplomatic relations

President of the United States, George W. Bush (right) at Camp David in March 2003, hosting the British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

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 Cuba Iran 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, these 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.

Allies

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, 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 the United Kingdom, itself a major military and economic power (see special relationship).Other allies include South Korea, Israel, Canada, Australia, and Japan.

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 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.
July 2006: Congress, hitherto a staunch defender of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all it stands for, is poised to allow America's laws to be amended to accommodate civilian nuclear trade with India, despite that country's bomb-building. There will then be pressure on the Nuclear Suppliers Group to carve an India-shaped hole in its global nuclear export restrictions and on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to agree to “India-specific” safeguards on any nuclear materials or technology sold. The Bush administration defends its India deal as good for combating Global warming, good for friendship with the world's biggest democracy and good for jobs in America. By lifting restrictions on India's ability to buy nuclear technology and fuel from abroad, America will be helping it out of a uranium squeeze: its usable stocks of enriched uranium (lower enriched for power generation, higher for weapons) have been dwindling fast.

Special relationship with Britain

Britain since 1940 has been a close military and political ally of the United States. It was forged by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Although strained by the Suez crisis of 1956, the special relationship endured. The US and Britain collaborate closely in NATO, and outside NATO they share military research and intelligence. Britain has purchased military technology from the U.S. and vice versa. Various joint military bases can be found throughout the globe. In recent years, the Prime Minister and the President have often been close friends, for example Tony Blair with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and in the 1980s the often like-minded Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Britain was a loyal partner in the Iraq War since the beginning in 2003.

Criticism and responses

Foreign media have often been critical of U.S. foreign policies. UK Independent Newspaper cover shown. US foreign policy has been heavily criticised 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.

 

There 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.

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 2003

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. 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.
Other realist critics, such as the late 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 as just that. Heavy emphasis on democratization or nation-building abroad, realists charge, was one of the major tenets of President Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic philosophy. According to realists, the failure of the League of Nations to enforce the will of the international community in the cases of Germany, Italy, and 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 says that: "the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times". 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 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". 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. The average U.S. citizen donates relatively more of his or her private, personal time and income to charity than any other nation's citizens. 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.

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. 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.

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, 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 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.

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.

 

History of exporting democracy

In the history of the United States, presidents have often used democracy as a justification for military intervention abroad. 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. Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligable, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."
But some studies, such as a study by Tures find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley have found that military inteventions have increased democracy in other countries.

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. 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."
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. 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.
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." 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.

U.S. intervention has mixed results

Tures examines 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. The majority 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.Cite error 3; Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many 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." 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.
Penceny states that the United States has attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 twentieth-century military interventions. Penceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.

Quotes:

No state has more consistently proclaimed its adherence to this liberal vision of the international system than the United States.

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.

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 unmolested.

 

CIA activities in the Americas <-- Previous Page

Next Page--> Imperialism- American style

 

 

SEE ALSO:	Dependency- Theory | Permanent war economy | Capitalism  | Monopoly  | Trade Bloc | competition | Origins of the War of 1812  | Supremacism | White Supremacy | Imperialism-The highest stage of capitalism | Imperialism in Asia | Iraq war | Background to the Vietnam War | American-Phillipine War | US-UK covert Military assistance to China|
GO TO:	FEEDBACK •CONTACT • ARCHIVE • PUBLICATION •
Created by:	Salauddine Mohammed Faruque on July 25,2007, last updated on 25.03.2008