American Foreign Policy: Main Steps Essay

Introduction

American foreign policy has been shaped by persons and individuals who remain to be icons in our Society. Foreign policy dictates the level and power that the country holds among her peers and it is very important that policies drafted for this purpose are done with the interest of the nation first. After a turbulent eight years in office, the Bush administration implemented a radical foreign policy that ended up with the country having more enemies and friends and foreign policy became a hot issue during the campaign period as reform was needed. This paper seeks to investigate the former and current policy that is being implemented and what impact it will have on America’s standing in the World stage.

1) According to Condoleezza rice, America has a huge responsibility of assisting Nations in reaching their full potential. This full potential can be manifested by countries attaining democracy and being economically independent from other donor nations. All this is done by increasing aid budgets to countries that need them for infrastructural development. The role of America is also described as protector of other nations from elements manmade elements such as terrorism and wars as pupated by Dickerson (¹). This has been exhibited by diplomacy efforts headed by the secretary of state and her team of staff. From dealing with the Middle East issue to offering humanitarian aid in Africa, America’s role is perceived as all inclusive and best described as mission of positively changing the world. This is seen as an effort by the Secretary of state in trying to mend broken relationships with both allies and perceived enemies. This comes as a result of the idealistic nature and basis that the president undertook while trying to bring world peace.

According to Rice, America’s allies has the benefit of having many allies on its side who are ready to partner with her in achieving world peace and spreading democracy. Australia has been stated as one of the closest allies that the country can align its influence with. In her article, Rice fails to mention some of America’s bigger allies. This shows the changing view that she had on how strategic Australia had become. Challenges faced by America include the omnipresent threat of terrorism and emerging extremism that has taken shape both within and without the country. America should play its role as it cannot afford to leave threats in the form of terrorist organizations, harmful arms and other forms of threats to shake world peace. All these threats have been perpetuated by rogue leaders and extremist ideas.

Terrorism

Terrorism acts have been on the increase from the late 19^th century and have been propagated due to a myriad of reasons by the individuals concerned. Terrorism is defined as the act of employing violence by groups outside national governments. Their aims are mostly to create fear and intimidation among particular groups of individuals or parts of the population. These aims can broaden to involve the support of sympathizers and the intimidation of opponents who do not necessarily agree with them or their ideologies. Members of such groups are often from diverse backgrounds. Terrorists have been found to have undergone college education; some have no education background at all. While some terrorists have been found to have undergone college education, others have no education background. Where others are married, others have been found to be single; they could also be men or women. In essence they come from an expansive sample of lifestyles and backgrounds, making it nearly impossible to pick them up from the masses. The use of terrorist acts have been ongoing for a major part of the 19^th century and it is until the recent past that their actions have been seen to bring massive consequences and implications to many countries of the world. In the past, terrorists were more concerned with the withdrawal of military forces from their perceived “homeland”. From regions such as Kashmir, Chechnya, Sri Lanka to Lebanon, terrorist activities were aimed at the establishment of separatist state that was to be governed by the terrorist group as stated by Stone (²). Most of these acts were committed from the 1980’s to late 1990s and were restricted to the country of the groups involved. Reasons for violence were mostly blamed on independence. Terrorism is constantly taking on new forms as it mutates in aims, number and composition of its members. Is it being driven by a concept or is it a virus that seeks to reinvent itself to suit the environment at the time? Is terrorism controlled by a recognizable authoritarian apparatus or is it being held by loose network that transcended national borders? These are just some of the few questions that psychologists, scholars and researchers into this phenomenon are asking themselves.

2) Rice’s views contradict that of president Obama. While the former administration’s foreign policy was based on idealism founded on beliefs such as the balance of power and the need to put the interests of the American nation first, the current policy is governed on realism where Obama’s vision for the world is founded on morality and the need to promote the rights and freedoms of all individuals of the world irrespective of background. Condoleezza rice herself was a learner of Brent Scowcroft. The gentleman worked in collaboration with Henry Kissinger, an idol of American politics and foreign policies. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the foreign policy at the time changed drastically. This change was the opposite of what president bush had been elected on, where he had said that he will follow a modest foreign policy; he changed his rhetoric and became Wilson an idealist. He freely subscribed to a freedom agenda. Obama on the other hand entered White house when the country faced a myriad of domestic problems. From economic to social problems that have plagued the country, the president signaled very early on that foreign policy was not top of his priority. As reflected in his speech, Obama’s policy differs from that of his predecessor who sought to impose himself on distant territories such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama’s policy is centered on generating peace and making up with former enemies in the Middle East. This approach is much more based on realism. Obama is willing to discuss with countries such as Iran and Syria in his effort to revitalize peace in the Middle East. He is also trying to promote peace by changing the ideologies held by most skeptics who have branded America’s effort in the Middle East as that of a neo colonial force.

3) Rice’s version of realism is different from the realism that had been fronted in traditional times. Rice is termed more of a neoconservative than a traditional realist as she paints the ability of United States to positively affect and influence political and economic decisions based on peaceful initiatives rather than through waging war. Traditional realism is based more on acting subtly and using coercive initiatives in order to pressure and sway decisions favoring the country. The type of realism subscribed by Rice is that of enhancing development throughout the world through programs and policy decision that enhance the efforts of many countries. Realism according to her view also takes into account that democracy and development have to go hand in hand as the full benefits are fully derived.

Traditional realism is based on more subtle means of spreading influence through the use of use of allies. Influence can also be spread through holding diplomatic talks in order to spread peace and diffuse tensions that may currently hinder development in certain regions. Traditional realists also did not hold away the thought of using provocative methods such as use of military force. This is unlike Rice’s view of realism which does not mention the use of military force as a method of spreading America’s influence. Her notion is rooted from the disastrous invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which has resulted in America having more enemies than friends.

4) Criticism of Rice’s view of realism is that it is credited with the current wars that are being fought on two fronts. She has faced a barrage of questions as to the foreign policy that was adopted by America. Her policy is termed as that of failure because of how it managed to handle relations between International countries. The administration’s decision to enter into war without the full consent of the United Nation and with only a handful of countries supporting the war was a real policy fiasco that exposed America’ soft under belly as purported by Rice (³).

On the other hand, Obama is criticized for being unenthusiastic with the push for more countries to push for democracy. This is credited with his roots and knowledge on diverse issues related to foreign policy and hence the cautious stand that he may take.

Conclusion

Rice is seen more as a neoconservative rather than as realist. This is despite the views that have been expressed in her paper. Her views are seen to be different from that that was being developed by the president at the time. Foreign policy in America was naturally based on traditional realism as manifested through former presidents, Truman and Churchill and a host of other prominent personalities. This view was shaken on the onset of terrorist activities that took place on September 11^th. The current president is however taking a realist stand and this has also contributed to the immense issues that the administration is facing at the moment coupled with a deeper understanding of the geopolitics of the World.

References

1. Dickerson, M, An introduction to government and politics: A conceptual approach. New York: Cengage Learning: 2009.
2. Stone, R, American Government and Politics Today. Texas: Prentice-Hall: 2008.
3. Rice, C, The New American Realism: Rethinking the National Interest. 2008; 3 (12): 2-50.

Footnotes

1. Dickerson, M, An introduction to government and politics: A conceptual approach. New York: Cengage Learning: 2009.
2. Stone, R, American Government and Politics Today. Texas: Prentice-Hall: 2008.
3. Rice, C, The New American Realism: Rethinking the National Interest. 2008; 3 (12): 2-50.