Foreign Policy (Essay Sample)

Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
The United States of America has been very stringent in all her happenings, and a robust foreign policy system can’t be the least of them. Her relation with the other countries across the globe has been recognized very well since the eras of the First World War. For instance, the 31st president of the United States, Herbert hoover who served from 1929 to 1933 has internationally been recognized for his effort for relief during war time Belgium. The ‘lend lease’; a program by the United States to supply china, UK, France and the USSR food and oil between 1941-1945.a total of $656 billion{today} was shipped. The 33rd president of the United States, Harry Truman embraced and reinforced internationalist foreign policy in collaboration with European allies. This asserts that indeed the United States has been a willing and capable balance of power in international interactions.
This article features the powers of the United States of America foreign policy and the fails it has encountered in implicating it through international law. In actual sense, it is an opinion that every president that the American citizens vote for has a different approach to international matters. The United States as the world’s super power has a vital responsibility of what is trending globally. Any calamity in any corner of the world, the United States collaborating with the United Nations which is considered greatly as the arm force to implementation of international law, is involved. However it is rather obvious that not all nations in the world will come into terms with the foreign policies deployed by different American presidents in the nick of time. Over a decade now, many events have taken place in different parts of the world. Some of them threaten the global power holder. Below are some incidents that not only give verdict whether the United States of America has got that grip in balance of power when handling international matters or not, but also give insight and cast aspersions on the quoted words of doctrines and articles written in different journals in regard to international relations, diplomacy and foreign affairs.
The 2015 Chicago Assembly Survey bid out a comprehensive image of the American public’s outlooks on foreign policy. The outcomes show that Americans give out a substantial sense of drive to stay affianced in global matters and take vigorous action against unswerving intimidations to the US national security, at the same time shunning predicaments abroad. Precisely, the outcomes prove that parochial differences have broadened considerably on quite a number of issues, such as a two-state resolution for Israel and Palestinians and the intimidations modeled by augmented immigration. Earlier surveys showed that views of democrats and Republicans were bizarrely akin on both of these matters in the past but now are no longer in sync.
The survey’s longitudinal info demonstrates how the American public’s cognition on certain issues has been motivated by key modulation points bound to real-world happenings. The upsurge of ISIS over the past year has aided in elevating the threat of terrorism across all parochial groups.
Other aspects can also shape predominant views on issues. The Republican and Democratic primaries put the positions of candidates under the limelight and shape the discourse through blanket media coverage. Already, the argument on immigration among GOP primary candidates has intensified, driven in part by the degree to which particular positions reverberate with the party’s base. The ongoing global debate about the Iran nuclear agreement all but guarantees it will remain a hot-bed topic.
Regardless of the degree of instability in the world, it is worth stressing that Americans incline to share similar basic objectives for US foreign policy. Top primacies include protecting American jobs, thwarting the spread of nuclear weapons, and fighting international terrorism. These common objectives and the public’s foreign policy ideals are said to be covered in the sentiments of a presidential campaign, but they fortify America’s role in the world and the country’s standing overseas.
Whether one goes for President Obama’s demeanor of foreign policy or doesn’t, the general supposition is that the administration is at least giving the American people the foreign policy they wanted. Majority of Americans have antagonized any significant U.S. role in Syria, have desired to lessen U.S. immersion in the Middle East. Generally, they are eager to see the "tide of war" retrocede and would like to focus on "nation-building at home." Until now, the president generally has given himself out to encourage this public mood, so one that presumes that he has succeeded, if nothing else, in gaining the public’s approval. In the real sense, he hasn’t. The president’s approval ratings on foreign policy are bleak. Taking a look at the most recent CBS News poll 2015, only 36 percent of Americans favor of the job Obama is doing on foreign policy, while 49 percent condemn. So we get back to the paradox: President Obama is supposedly steering a foreign policy in line with popular opinion, whereas his foreign policy is not popular. In a nutshell, they may want what Obama so far has been giving them. However they’re not proud of it, and they are not appreciative to him for granting them what they want.
Not always are presidents appreciated for doing what the public says it wants. Sometimes they are appreciated for doing just the opposite. Bill Clinton enjoyed higher approval ratings after prevailing in Bosnia and Kosovo, even though majority of Americans had antagonized both interventions before he launched them. Who knows what the public might have thought of Obama had he gone through with his planned attack on Syria last August? It is all a matter of democracy.
Underneath the shelter of a US military, the United Nations disencumbered itself from Somalia in early March 1995. The withdrawal went well and may function as a model for drawing UN peacekeepers out of the prior Yugoslavia and other places where they run into misfortune. Though, what lessons is the US obtaining from the "failed" Somalia initiative? Does "failure" serve the best name when referring to the US and UN military intervention? If so indeed, what did it fail at? The Somalia epidemic suggests several lessons. Chiefly, it is palpable that the US and other leading nations should act through diplomacy before states fail and societies collapse. Second, Somalia strengthens the point that the connection between UN peacekeeping mandates and the resources made available by member states must be better understood by Security Council members so that they do not approve missions that will expose UN peacekeepers to severe risk and the UN itself to ridicule. Finally, there is no excuse for underfunding and undermining missions that warrant US support.
Trailing back on memory lane, Bill Clinton was voted in president at a moment of both triumph and uncertainty for America in the world. The victories of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War will be long remembered. The memory of the uncertainty is already fading.
Below are principles that have directed the Clinton foreign policy and should direct his successor:
1. America’s association with Europe and Asia indeed remain the cornerstone of its national security, but they must be constantly adapted to meet emerging challenges.
2. Peace and security for the United States depend on the building principled, constructive, clear-eyed relations with our former great-power adversaries.
3. Local scuffles can have global consequences
4. New dangers, accentuated by technological advances and the permeability of borders, require new national security priorities
5. Economic amalgamation advances both our interests and our values but also accentuates the need to alleviate economic disparities
Bill Clinton has led the greatest world trade expansion in history (from $4 trillion to $6.6 trillion a year). The most common critique is that the president has advanced no single foreign policy doctrine or framework. Another cliché is that the Clinton foreign policy has been driven by politics.
Under the regime of President Bush, there will be no rush to extensive dialogues simply on the foundation of history that talk is good. Treaties, Mr. Bush and his advisers say, will be adopted when they authentically carve American interests in stone. In some areas of arms controls, the administration believes that treaties bind only the honest but give cover to the cheat. And on nuclear arms control in particular, treaties move too slowly to manage a dynamic yet still vague relationship with Russia at a time when historic reductions in arsenals are conceivable, officials say. By disposing several of the hard-earned, high-profile treaties on arms control and the environment, Mr. Bush has been subjected to outrage from some of America's closest friends who wonder what will replace a world ordered by treaties as well as its adversaries who see arrogance in Mr. Bush's actions.
President Bush was sworn in office vowing to promptly scrap the ABM Treaty, heedlessly of Russian objections. There is little uncertainty that Mr. Bush still plans to invoke the six-month notice to legally withdraw from the pact. But after he met President Vladimir V. Putin, and said he had looked into the Russian's soul, Mr. Bush instructed his national security team to begin accelerated discussions to create a new security framework with Russia as a partner.
Looking eastwards, the Americans c...