From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > US Foreign Policy

---

US Foreign Policy

Contents 1 What are the main priorities of US foreign policy? 2 Has George Bush pushed US foreign policy in a more unilateralist direction? 3 Are there significant foreign policy differences between Europe, and why are there tensions between the two? 4 Comments

What are the main priorities of US foreign policy?

• The United States has vast economic, political and military influence on a global scale, which makes its foreign policy a subject of great interest and discussion around the world.
• Goals of U.S. foreign policy repeatedly mentioned and emphasized by U.S. officials are:
  • Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad.
  • Defense policy and procurement decisions related to force posture.
  • 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.
  • Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need.
• The Bush Doctrine:
  • It was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'.
  • It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
  • In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
  • The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War.
  • The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.
• The 2002 Bush Doctrine can be summarized in ten points :
  1. Unilateralism is to replace multilateralism, when preventive war is required to protect American interests and those of allies;
  2. The role of the United Nations is de facto considerably reduced;
  3. International conflicts can be resolved through the use of military force, when diplomacy fails;
  4. The result would be the advent of a ‘Pax Americana’; (denotes the period of relative peace in the Western world since the end of World War II in 1945, coinciding with the dominant military and economic position of the United States. It places the U.S. in the military and diplomatic role of a modern-day Roman Empire (Pax Romana).)
  5. End of the policy of nuclear mutual deterrence;
  6. Initiation of a worldwide crusade for liberty and democracy;
  7. Pursuit of a policy of American military supremacy;
  8. Introduction of the ideology of moral absolutism in American interventions abroad;
  9. Nations are to be ranked according to American standards;
  10. Active promotion of American economic interests around the world.
• This ambitious Bush Doctrine of American foreign policy is designed to establish a new world order under U. S. leadership. It marks a net break with the post World War II international framework, based on international law and international organizations, such as the United Nations.
• For the last sixty years, wars of aggression have been outlawed under the terms of the United Nations Charter. The militarization of American foreign policy could generate accusations of imperialism.
• It was fully defined by National Security Strategy of the United States:
  • Preemption - A policy of preventive war, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US.
  • Unilateralism - The duty of the US to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multilateral solutions cannot be found.
  • Strength Beyond Challenge - The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.
  • Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions - A policy of actively promoting democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. Bush declared at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."
  • Encouraging stronger and more direct policies against terrorism from other nations. - It should be noted that the latter two principles have been the official policy of the United States enumerated in all National Security Strategies issued since the end of the Cold War during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush.
• Criticisms of the Bush Doctrine:
  • Suspicious of the increasing willingness of the US to use military force unilaterally. Critics believe that requiring any country (including the United States) to obtain international support before undertaking offensive military action is necessary to prevent the escalation of conflicts and the dominance of one nation over others.
  • In addition, many criticisms have arisen around the doctrine's assertion that the United States will never allow any potential adversary -- a term which is unlikely to exclude many states -- to develop the military capability of challenging the US as the world's sole superpower.
  • This doctrine is argued to be contrary to the Just War Theory. Though the classical formulation envisages causes other than that of a defensive war, many theorists today are extremely reluctant to accept any cause other than a defensive war as satisfying its criteria.
  • The main argument against these criticisms is that the doctrine is concerned only with self-defence, but is simply re-interpreting the acceptable time horizon for a perceived threat. In other words the threat does not need to be imminent before self-defensive actions can be performed. Yet this is a dangerous change since it means that the doctrine can be used to justify any invasion of any sort under a veil of pre-emptive strike
  • The Bush Doctrine has also been criticized for its purported "active promotion of democracy and freedom," as the United States deals with oppressive dictators on a regular basis. This includes the United States' most populous trading partner, with "most favoured nation" status, the People's Republic of China, a Communist nation which most in the West feel to have an unfree and abusive government. The Bush Doctrine, has, thus far, only been applied to certain countries: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
  • Also, many critics have noted the similarity between the countries in the Axis of Evil, and the goals of the conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century, which supports and advocates the dominance of world affairs by the United States — and many in the Bush Administration are, or have been, involved in the PNAC.
  • Historical critics of preventive war (although obviously not in the context of the Bush Doctrine) include former US President Abraham Lincoln.

Has George Bush pushed US foreign policy in a more unilateralist direction?

• Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided action. Such action may be in disregard for other parties, or as an expression of a commitment toward a direction which other parties may find agreeable. Unilateralism is a neologism, coined to be an antonym for multilateralism —the doctrine which asserts the benefits of participation from as many parties as possible.
• The two terms together can refer to differences in foreign policy approached to international problems. When agreement by multiple parties is absolutely required —for example in the context of international trade policies —bilateral agreements (involving two participants at a time) (e.g. those treaties between US and other states preventing them taking US to ICC) are usually preferred by proponents of unilateralism.
• Unilateralism may be preferred in those instances when it's assumed to be the most efficient, i.e., in issues that can be solved without cooperation.
• However, a government may also have a principal preference for unilateralism or multilateralism, and, for instance, strive to avoid policies that cannot be realized unilaterally or alternatively to champion multilateral solution to problems that well could have been solved unilaterally.
• This unilateralism is best defined as a conscious decision to put America first, even if there is a diplomatic price to be paid.
• Whereas Mr Clinton became known as a determined consensus and alliance builder, Mr Bush has signalled on a number of issues that the US is prepared to go it alone, even if it puts noses out of joint in other countries - friend or foe:
  • Mr Bush has put great store by a National Missile Defence System, which the Chinese and Russians both oppose strongly, and the Europeans are wary of, to say the least.
  • He has made clear that he will not implement the Kyoto treaty on the environment, a decision that has upset all the other signatories.
  • Mr Bush has also publicly differed with the Korean President Kim Dae-jung about how best to deal with North Korea.
• Unilateralism has had a long history in the United States. In his famous and influential Farewell Address, George Washington warned that the United States should "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world". Many years later, this approach was labeled (by its opponents) as "isolationism", but some historians of U.S. diplomacy have long argued that "isolationism" is a misnomer, and that U.S. foreign policy, beginning with Washington, has traditionally been driven by unilateralism. Recent works that have made this argument include Walter A. McDougall's Promised Land, Crusader State (1997) and John Lewis Gaddis's Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004).
• Debates about unilateralism recently came to the forefront with the Iraq War. While over 30 countries have supported the U.S. policy, some previous American allies, such as France, Germany and Turkey, are not participating. Many opponents of the war have argued that the United States is "going it alone" in Iraq without the support of multilateral institutions—in this case NATO and the United Nations, which America has supported since the end of World War II.
• Advocates of U.S. unilateralism argue that other countries should not have "veto power" over matters of U.S. national security. Presidential Candidate John Kerry received heavy political heat after saying, during a presidential debate, that American national security actions must pass a "global test". This was interpreted by Kerry opponents as a proposal to submit U.S. foreign policy to approval by other countries.
• Proponents of U.S. unilateralism generally believe that a multilateral institution, such as the United Nations, is morally suspect because, they argue, it treats non-democratic, and even despotic, regimes as being as legitimate as democratic countries.
• Critics of American unilateralism point to the ethical implications of engaging in armed conflicts that may inevitably draw in combatants from other nations, as well as the undermining of the international ability to protect small nations from aggressors.
• Unilateralism, it is argued, can be considered nothing more than a positively-sold version of the very actions that would earn other states the title of aggressor or rogue nation. Opponents of unilateralism say it rejects the essential interwoven nature of modern global politics and perhaps underestimates the extent to which a conflict in one country can affect civilians in others.
• Proponents of multilateralism argue that it would provide a country with greater resources, both militarily and economically, and would help in defraying the cost of military action. However, with divided responsibility inevitably comes divided authority, and thus (in theory at least) slower military reaction times and the demand that troops follow commanders from other nations.
• Multilateralists argue that co-operations strengthens the bonds between nations and peoples, paints the U.S. in a more responsible and respected light, and reduces the risk of wildfire conflicts by increasing the size and unity of the enemy such a rogue nation would face.
• Isolationism is the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations, and has a long association with the US.
• Today, non-interventionists (isolationists) argue that the United States is far removed from its earlier history of non-intervention.
• They cite recent presidents of both political parties who have often used intervention as a tactic of foreign policy, including:
  • President Ronald Reagan's 1983 intervention in Grenada
  • President George Herbert Walker Bush's 1989 intervention in Panama to arrest General Manuel Noriega
  • President George Herbert Walker Bush's 1989 intervention in Kuwait
  • President George Herbert Walker Bush's 1992 intervention in Somalia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons (continued under President Bill Clinton.)
  • President Bill Clinton's 1995 intervention in Bosnia, ostensibly to prevent ethnic cleansing and his 1999 intervention in Kosovo and attacks on Serbia on behalf of the Muslim Albanian-led Kosovo Liberation Army
  • President Bill Clinton's and president George W. Bush's embargo of Iraq, which critics say led to the starvation of an estimated half million women and children.
  • President George W. Bush's 2001 intervention in Afghanistan against the Taliban following the September 11 Attacks.
  • President George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein.
• Many of these military actions received overwhelming popular support, showing a lack of cohesiveness to the anti-war movement and message.
• Some assert that through America's decades of membership in the United Nations, multi-lateral interventionism has become the dominant policy of the United States government, though unilateral interventionism was articulated as the preferred policy of the George W. Bush administration for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Are there significant foreign policy differences between Europe, and why are there tensions between the two?

• "Europeans view the US as a unilateralist loudmouth ready to ride roughshod over international law. For most Americans, most Europeans are weedy and pusillanimous, soft on terrorism and rogue states." (Lord Powell)
• The EU sees itself very much as a bilateral partner to the US
• There are a number of issues over which the United States and Europe generally disagree. Some of these are cultural, such as Bush's stance on abortion or the U.S. use of death penalty, international issues such as the Middle East peace process, whilst many others are trade related. The current U.S. policies are often described as being unilateral in nature, whereas the European Union and Canada often take a more multilateral approach, relying more on the United Nations and other international institutions to help solve issues.
• Issues of contention:
  • Transatlantic relations recently have been characterised as strained, especially due to divergent positions on the Iraq war which prominent European nations, including France and Germany (dubbed Old Europe by Donald Rumsfeld) opposed.
  • Another major issue is reducing pollution with the Kyoto protocol, which the whole European Union and Canada support and the United States opposes. Nevertheless, there are many cultural, economic, political and military ties between the two areas.
  • Arms embargo on the People's Republic of China - Both the United States and the European Union as of 2005 have an arms embargo against China (PRC), put in place in 1989 after the events of Tiananmen Square. The U.S. and some EU members continue to support the ban whilst others, spearheaded by France have been attempting to persuade the EU to lift the ban, arguing that more effective measures can be imposed, but also to improve trade relations between China and certain EU states. The U.S. strongly opposes this, and after China (PRC) passed an anti-secession law against Taiwan the likelihood of the ban being lifted diminished somewhat.
  • Boeing and Airbus subsidies - The two companies are the major competing aircraft manufacturers, and both Boeing and Airbus receive forms of subsidy from the United States and from some of the European Union member states respectively, which both sides have criticised each other for doing. The pressure for this issue to be resolved has increased as Airbus and Boeing are now nearly equal in commercial aircraft market share, although Boeing remains the much larger company.
  • Death penalty - In the United States, capital punishment is a legal and widely used form of punishment, whereas all European Union member states have abolished the death penalty fully (excluding Latvia which has retained it for exceptional circumstances only). Indeed, nearly all European states no longer use the death penalty. This causes problems with transatlantic relations because it may be illegal for an EU member to allow the extradition of a citizen to the U.S. if the death penalty is an option.
  • International Criminal Court - The U.S. is strongly opposed to the ICC, and has not signed up to it, whilst most states in Europe have. The U.S. fears that its soldiers may be subject to politically motivated prosecutions, so much so that it has signed many bilateral agreements with other countries in an attempt to avoid this.
  • Israel-Palestine conflict - Whilst both sides of the Atlantic publicly support a two-state solution to the conflict, in general, the European Union is often more critical of some of the Israeli government's policies, such as the West Bank barrier whilst the U.S. is often more supportive of Israel, for example by using its veto at the United Nations Security Council.
  • Iran and weapons of mass destruction - The United States has been taking a hard line on the question of Iranian nuclear weapons, not ruling out military action, whilst Europe, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have attempted to engage in dialogue with Iran. Former UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, described military action against Iran as "inconceivable".
  • Iraq war - The war on Iraq not only divided opinions within European nations and within the U.S., but between European nations themselves, with some states supporting of military action, and some against. This caused a major transatlantic rift, especially between France and Germany on the one hand, who were against military action, and the United States and the UK on the other hand, strongly in favour. The repercussions of this major dividing issue have still not healed fully.
  • Kyoto protocol - The European Union is one of the main backers of the Kyoto protocol, which aims to combat global warming, while the United States is one of its most prominent opponents.

• Resolved issues:
  • U.S. steel tariffs - In 2002, the U.S. imposed steel tariffs to protect its steel industry. The European Union and other countries took up the issue with the WTO, which ruled that such tariffs breach its regulations. Subsequently, by December 2003, the tariffs had been lifted by the U.S. administration.

• Possible issues:
  • Secret CIA Prisons - The Washington Post claimed on November 2, 2005 that the USA has several secret jails in Eastern Europe (also called black sites). Poland and Romania however have denied these allegations. Also, CIA planes carrying terror suspects would have made secret stopovers in several West European countries since 2001. Belgium, Iceland, Spain, and Sweden have launched investigations. The Guardian calculated on November 30 that CIA planes landed about 300 times on European air ports. Most planes would have landed in Germany and the United Kingdom as a transit point to East Europe, North Africa (possibly Morocco and Egypt) or the Middle East (possibly Syria and Jordan). In the meanwhile, the European Commission, on behalf of the European Union, asked the US for a clarification. The EU has refused to confirm or deny the reports.

• “The EU and the US have a common belief in democratic government, human rights and market economics, and they are bound by close security ties. Both sides share a common concern in handling effectively a wide variety of political and security issues across the globe. The EU and the US have to confront global challenges such as terrorist threats, menace to security and stability, weapons proliferation, drugs, organised crime and many other important issues.” (European Commission)
• “EU leaders share President Bush's emphasis on combating terrorism, bolstering homeland security, and promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The declarations of the last EU-US Summit demonstrate how much we're working together on our common priorities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, and the threat posed by non-state actors.” (Benita Ferrero-Waldner)
• “European foreign ministers meeting in the Spanish town of Caceres have denied that US President George Bush's "axis of evil" speech has caused a trans-atlantic rift. But some have nevertheless criticised the US position, and warned Washington against unilateralism.” (BBC)
• “Mr Bush's attitude towards the Middle East and his tough line on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is causing deep concern in Europe.” (BBC)
• “The United States and the European Union (EU) are vital partners in promoting freedom and democracy around the world” (US Department of State) (all below quoted form same source)
• We maintain a robust agenda of cooperation on a number of vital issues, including the Balkans, Ukraine, the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa.
• In the Western Balkans, the U.S. and the EU work closely in strengthening democracy, ensuring stability, and promoting the region's integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. Last December, we welcomed the EU's leadership in the launching of its "Operation Althea" in Bosnia, which also demonstrated a successful implementation of the Berlin-plus agreements between NATO and the EU. In Ukraine, the U.S. and the EU consulted closely during the presidential election campaign and especially following the flawed November first-round vote, and we applauded efforts by many EU leaders to resolve the post-election crisis.
• The U.S. and the EU are close partners within the Quartet, alongside the United Nations and Russia, in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. The EU has made significant contributions to our mutual goal of promoting good governance, democracy, and strong civil societies throughout the Middle East. Since the January 2005 Palestinian elections, the U.S. and the EU have each pledged more than $300 million to support reform in the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. and the EU also work together in promoting reform through the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative.
• We share a commitment to the future of a federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified Iraq. The U.S. and EU supported preparations for Iraq's January elections and will continue to cooperate to support Iraq's democratic institutions. In Afghanistan, the EU has also been a close partner in supporting democratic development and reconstruction. Most notably, in 2003 the EU pledged to provide one billion euros (roughly $1.3 billion) to Afghanistan over a five-year period to support reconstruction and development.
• The U.S. and the EU cooperate on many African issues, including supporting efforts by the African Union to restore peace in the Darfur region. The U.S. welcomed the EU peacekeeping mission in the Great Lakes region, and welcomed the EU joining the Tripartite Commission as an observer. The U.S. consults regularly with the EU on assistance programs, including efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and other concerns, throughout Africa.

Comments

These notes are aimed at people studying for Edexcel A Level Politics, module 5 and 6, route D, but will be suitable for other people too.

Originally submitted by joker13na on TSR Forums.