America’s grand strategy till now was to preserve the uncontested global supremacy it has enjoyed since the end of the Cold War times and maintain the geopolitical unipolar environment that has come into existence ever since. America has pushed for such status since the post-World War II era. After September 11, 2001, subsequent to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon bracing up its defenses against international terrorism became America’s central concern. It declared war on Afghanistan to flush out Al Qaeda and achieved a quasi success in the process. Once these immediate threats were defused, the nation was faced with a few alternatives in relation to its foreign policy, which is needed to choose to best extenuate the threats of further terrorist attacks against the nation. Either it could revert to its pre-Cold War policy of minimal engagement in global affairs or it could persist with the post-Cold War strategy of instituting a global preponderance.
Another option could be to overhaul the foreign policy completely, come out of profligate alliances and engagements and shift the focus of concerns towards the growing anti-U.S feeling which led up to the building up of forces of terrorist operations around the globe. The 2003 attacks on Iraq aiming at using force to restore democracy made it apparent that the U.S. strategy of preponderance would be followed in a belligerent manner. The major facets of this policy are:
- Conception and preservation of an American-led geopolitical order based on superlative U.S. political, martial and economic power and on American ideals.
- Increase of American ascendance over the international scheme of things to the fullest by means of averting the materialization of adversary powers in Europe and East Asia. (3) Prevention by means of suppressing the augmentation of regional powers like Iraq, Iran and North Korea, which could pose a threat to the welfare of the United States or its associates.
The first indications of such policy came from Pentagon in 1992 when it was found quoting, “our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any future global competitor by convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role”. The core conjecture relating to this theory is that even though the nation itself is highly protected in terms of external threats it has an undeniable concentration on maintaining an international constancy. Thus, it makes effort to thwart the growth of new or potentially strong emerging powers, which prevents the spreading out of instability from tactically peripheral regions to areas of core strategic significance. In its effort to preserve the unipolar state of affairs America has shown a compelling interest in designing the scheme of things that are free from military conflicts and economic instabilities.
The strategy has been to admonish nations like Germany and Japan to become self-sufficient strategic powers themselves using constant support and commitments of providing for their security. The U.S. has endeavored to incorporate Russia and China into the procedures of an American-centered global order. It has involved itself in regional inconsistencies in Europe, Middle East and Asia, which have latent possibilities of disrupting the security arrangements or lure other powers into desires of a more autonomous role. In order to discourage Japan’s engagement in nuclear operations it has got itself entangled in the North Korean nuclear quandary. It has ventured into various multilateral coalitions and generated a sense of insecurity amongst many, which has created a unipolar international environment.
By the late ’90s the U.S made clear its objectives of enacting the role of a regional stabilizer in terms of military operations and economic activity. Instead of resorting to an offshore balancing policy, it has campaigned to persuade all major powers that its security eventually depends on sustained special association with the United States of America. They have got involved politically in Asia-Pacific regional disputes, be it the North Korean Nuclear problem, Chinese-Taiwan conflicts, Indo-Pak arguments or the instability issue in Indonesia, in order to find a solution. Even on the economic front, it has forced its involvement. By making it apparent to Japan that incorporating the role of the U.S. as a pacific power is essential for regional Asian economic bodies like APEC, it instills its dominance in the economic arena. America has invested heavily in information revolution technologies and military machinery to maintain its economic and military supremacy. The notion of a United States-centered international order is comforting to some. However, many nations view it as a threat and do not approve of it.
The American military institutions enjoy an overpowering superiority, as they are equipped with high-end technological machinery in conventional war capabilities. Regional powers are of no match to their abilities in this sphere and thus cannot contend with the U.S dominance. The only approach they can adopt to counterbalance American pre-eminence and make certain of adequate security measures to resist despised American intervention is by attaining nuclear war technologies or weapons of mass destruction. Washington’s intention of pursuing its policy of strategic preponderance bears imperative significance on nuclear proliferation as well. Thus, with the sense of competitive political and strategic objectives, regional states have a stronger motivation to obtain nuclear technologies. As current state of affairs indicates the regional powers are growing and their desire to counter the political unevenness is becoming stronger than ever before.
China has existed as a tough nuclear power for quite some time now and continues to enhance its economic, nuclear, and conventional martial power with an inherent aspiration of dislodging the American superiority. Japan has emerged as another strategic power near the beginning of the 21st century. India’s nuclear test comes as an affirmation of its aspiration to become a key global player. Putting it in other words, although the preponderance strategy seems rational at the first glimpse it has much deeper consequences. It increasingly poses a threat of backfiring geopolitically. It has the potential to prompt the materialization of new world players. As acquiring nuclear weapons and technologies have become a prerequisite for being known as a global power, such policies also lead to nuclear proliferation in the 21st century.
A Shift in policy
The strategy of offshore balancing comes as an alternative to the existent strategy of preponderance. Implementing the offshore balancing strategy could help insulating U.S. from potential great-power conflicts and at the same time would help it make the most of its powerful position in the international community. It would also help America to shun its perpetuating image as a hegemonic nation. The recent times bear witness to changing world order. Offshore balancing is an approach adopted for multilateral world order. Thus, its importance is far-reaching in an already emerging multipolar world. This paper takes an in-depth look at the current situations, which are pushing for a change in the American grand strategy.
Allies all across the globe have started to resent the American hegemony. Recent issues have surfaced about the U.S.-South Korea security alliance, which poses a challenge to their longstanding association. South Korea’s dedication to sharing America’s post-9/11 security objectives is under question. North Korea’s intention to acquire the nuclear power status has also been a major cause of concern. In South Korea, growing nationalism has generated the insistence for a more equally poised bond with the United States. Increased nationalistic feelings in Taiwan imply a progress of the pro-independence faction. Even in Japan, the most influential ally of the U.S. in East Asia there are numerous issues like Okinawa, which have forced the Japanese Government to push for the demand of a more autonomous role in Japan’s security. All strategic allies in East Asia like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan play a key role in U.S.’s strategy to tackle adversaries like China and North Korea. Offshore Balancing in East Asia could be a viable option for the new government to prevent the escalation of such issues concerning allies, which could lead to a declining relationship.
Even in Europe, there has been a growing dislike of the American unilateral dominance. It has worsened the goodwill caused by post-Cold War alliances and events of September 11. It also promoted the unification of European nations and escalated claims for autonomy in security, which can be substantiated by increased European participation in peacekeeping missions in the Balkan Peninsula. A policy of restraint and de-engagement of European operations helps to prevent the growth of discontent sentiments against the U.S. and foster the U.S-European relationship.
The United States is also in midst of an economic crisis. The state has already been officially declared to be in recession. Thus amongst this economically defunct environment continuing the strategy of preponderance would prove to be disastrous to the American government. On the other hand, the offshore balancing approach is a more practical solution. It is more much cheaper than implementing the preponderance strategy. It decreases the defense spending to the range of 2 to 2.5 percent of the GNP. The United States could also benefit from the markets adjusting to a shifting political and strategic perspective and altered investments and trade flows.
The strategy of preponderance can also be blamed to an extent for the nuclear proliferation. Regional powers feel far more insecure due to their inferior conventional warfighting capabilities as compared to the U.S. Thus, they seek to acquire nuclear technologies and other weapons of mass destruction in order to instill a sense of security. It is highly improbable that implementing the offshore balancing strategy would spark off a proliferation of chain reactions. Other powers would act on augmenting their conventional war capabilities based on the limited resources they possess.
With the traits of a good policy, offshore balancing also parries the unidentified and potentially unforeseen emergencies. It does not discard the possibility of intervention as a last resort. It is in coherence with a selective engagement policy, which America can always invoke in its capacity as an elite power in a multipolar world.
The New Foreign Policy
As the new president Mr. Barack Hussein Obama takes oath in January 2009 after his election in November 2008, a rethink is in order. He is faced with a number of problems and this paper aims at analyzing his foreign policies by looking at the current problems and his take on the issues.
Renewing American Diplomacy
The United States is ensnared by the Bush regime’s methodology used on the diplomatic level. It rejected all opportunities to discuss with leaders who are not on the list of ‘liked’ people. According to Obama school of thought, not talking does not imply toughness. On the contrary, turning away from the talking table is an indication of arrogance. It hinders progress and makes it difficult for the U.S. to gather worldwide patronage for American leadership. It believes that lack of well-built international support makes it difficult to encounter challenges posed by various issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, public health and global warming. The new president-elect believes that talking over the conference table can help solve many issues. The Obama-Biden-led administration is eager to convene with the leaders of all friendly states as well as adversaries to renew their associations. They plan to make the required vigilant preparations, but at the same, they want to indicate that America is all set to commence talks and that it is prepared to lead. The new policy of renewing diplomacy assumes that if America were ready to sort out issues over the table, the international community would approve of this and would be more agreeable to support the U.S. leadership to address troubling issues like violence, and concerns over nuclear warfare posed by Iranian and North Korean nuclear operations.
Expanding Diplomatic Presence
To make diplomacy a preference the new strategy will impede the closing down of consulates and re-establish them in the neglected and desperate corners of the globe with special concentration on Africa. They will enlarge the scope of foreign services, and build up the capability of the civilian support groups to work in coherence with the military.
Fighting Global Poverty
The Obama administration promises to adopt the Millennium Development Goal of reducing severe poverty across the planet by half within 2015, and to double the American foreign aid to a sum of $50 billion in order to pursue the purpose. They are dedicated to assisting the world’s poorest nations to develop healthy and learned communities, eradicate poverty, build up markets, and generate a strong economy. They plan to fully sponsor debt annulment for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries aiming to provide prolonged debt relief and spend at least $50 billion within four years for the globally recognized cause of the fight against HIV/AIDS and other major diseases.
Strengthening NATO
To bring about a sense of offshore balancing the new foreign policy would try to convince NATO members to supply troops for joint security maneuvers and persuade them to devote more spending towards restoration and stabilization operations. This, according to the new administration, would help in reorganizing the decision-making processes and would provide the NATO commandants more flexibility on the field. After all, it is true that “the Kosovo experience illustrates some of the difficulties of exploiting insurgent threats facing an adversary.” The difficulties faced in a foreign land operation can only be dealt with by combining forces. From the point of view of US military activities, moreover, it can well be established that “Selective engagement prescribes for the United States a set of goals adapted to contemporary conditions”. Thus, the motto would be to select a foe to fight at a time with upgraded power such as instrumentation of NATO in the cause.
On Nuclear Proliferation
The severest danger to American sovereignty is the risk of a rebel attack with nuclear arms and the reaching of nuclear weaponry in the hands of dangerous terrorist groups. Obama has been party to bipartisan activity to protect nuclear arms and hardware. In his efforts to ensure nuclear security, he worked alongside Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law, which facilitates the United States government and its allies to identify and discontinue the spread of weapons of mass destruction across the world through smuggling of nuclear materials. He also united with Senator Chuck Hagel to bring in a bill in the Senate, which aims at forestalling nuclear terrorism, putting a check on universal nuclear munitions and ending the distribution of nuclear armaments. Even though various schools of thoughts have suggested threatening the terrorist groups with threats to bomb their training camps using nuclear bombs, Obama policies disagree. It professes that the most effective means of ensuring American security is to keep nuclear weapons out of the reach of terrorists rather than threatening them with nuclear arms.
The new government plans to make safe all loose nuclear supplies around the globe within its four years of rule. In addition to securing current stocks of nuclear materials, Obama would promote a confirmable global prohibition on the fabrication of new nuclear technology materials in order to thwart the terrorist’s capability to acquire loose nuclear materials.
Obama-Biden leadership resolves to come down on nuclear proliferation with a heavy hand. In relation to that, it proposes intensification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty having the effect of immediate international sanctions on states like North Korea and Iran if they go out of the limits of international norms.
Obama doctrines dream of a world devoid of nuclear threats, and are ready to follow the path, which leads to it. Their policies proclaim a sustained viable deterrent behavior until diffusion of the long-existing threat of nuclear proliferation. At the same time, they are eager to take counteractive measures toward eradicating the nuclear race from the face of the earth. They insist on discontinuing the competition of fabricating new destructive nuclear technologies. They also and want to work in close cooperation with Russia to neutralize the hair-trigger alert on U.S. and Russian ballistic artillery and ensure remarkable drops in U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles levels so that an international indenture promoting harmony can be realized.
On Bipartisanship and Openness
In the views of the Obama faction, foreign policies used by previous administrations have acted as a dividing force rather than becoming a cohesive cause to promote unity amongst Americans. It alleges that administrative policies have been non-transparent causing disastrous results for the American citizens. Obama believes that foreign policies are strengthened if Americans are unified and when the government procedures are transparent and honest with the American populace. In the Senate, President-elect Obama has worked together with Republicans as well as Democrats to promote vital policy initiatives on issues such as protecting very devastating armaments along with conventional weapons, increasing endowment for non-proliferation, and responding to the volatility in Congo.
The Obama administration contrives to assemble a bipartisan Consultative Group formed by leading members of the Congress to encourage an improved executive-legislative relationship and a bipartisan unison over foreign policy. This group would be made up of the congressional leadership belonging to both political parties, and elite members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. It has been proposed that this bipartisan group would congregate with the president on a monthly basis to make an assessment of international policy priorities, and that military actions would be discussed with the group prior to execution. Obama wishes to establish a National Declassification Center with a purpose to ensure that declassification is secure but at the same time regular, proficient and cost-effective as well. In order to make the government working procedures more transparent the new administration wishes to involve the American population in foreign policy decision making. They plan to execute such a purpose by conducting broadband town hall meetings to talk about foreign policy on a national level, which would be overseen by national security officials.
Seeking New Partnerships in Asia
Another sense of offshore balancing can be found in the Obama-Biden-led administration’s decision to build a more efficient framework in Asia that would be more than just bilateral conventions, sporadic summits, and makeshift arrangements, such as the six-party meetings on North Korea. They claim to work towards re-strengthening the well-built associations with allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia; put their efforts in constructing an infrastructure with nations in East Asia that can endorse solidity and prosperity; and wield to make sure that China adheres to the international rules.
Meeting the Challenge of a Renascent Russia
Invasion of Georgia by Russian forces in August 2008 has brought up a new security concern for the United States and its allies in Europe. Instead of overlooking deteriorating U.S.-Russian associations, the Obama administration wants to tackle the challenge presented by an progressively more despotic and aggressive Russia by following an innovative and all-inclusive strategy that promotes American public interests without negotiating its permanent ideology. Settling for obsolete 20th-century philosophy to counter this new-age challenge does not push forward American national welfare. Thus, Obama-Biden leadership is resolute to adhere to an integrated and dynamic strategy that takes account of the entire region in order to meet the challenges posed by the resurgent Russia. The core apparatus of this strategy incorporates:
- Standing behind democratic allies and perpetuating doctrines of sovereignty across Europe and Eurasia as well as functioning proactively to estimate efficiently the intents of other key players in the expanse and deal with anxieties between nations before they spin out of control and turn into military conflicts;
- Intensifying the Transatlantic coalition in order to tackle Russia with unanimity;
- Facilitating reduced dependence of allies and associates in the area on Russian energy sources.
Confronting the Russian government straightforwardly over matters of mutual significance such as addressing nuclear proliferation, plummeting nuclear stockpiles, escalating trade operations along with enhancing investment prospects and combating terrorist outfits and Extending out a hand to all nations of the region, including Russia, in order to fabricate an amalgamated global order which demonstrates a pledge to act as accountable, law-abiding affiliates of the international community.
Africa
In his capacity as an affiliate of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Barack Obama has toiled hard to draw American attention to the problems faced by Africa: bringing to an end the genocide in Darfur passing statute laws to counter the volatile situation in Congo and to strengthen the judicial system in Liberia, rally global pressure on Zimbabwe for a fair administration, dealing with dishonesty in Kenya, ensuring that help is reached to the HIV/AIDS affected and awareness about the issue is grown in South Africa, designing a sound policy required to alleviate Somalia, and traveling extensively throughout the region increasing consciousness about these grave problems.
He has also worked towards bringing to America’s notice the long-term challenges such as edification, poverty control, treatment of various diseases, growth of democratic institutions and urging a maintainable economic expansion in Africa. As the president, Obama looks at taking instant measures to impede the genocide in Darfur by building up pressure on the Sudanese and force the regime to cut short the slaughtering process and stop hindering the use of a vigorous international force. The new administration would hold the leaders in Khartoum accountable for adhering to their obligations under the Comprehensive Peace Accord that ended the 30-year inconsistency amongst the north and south. Obama along with Senator Sam Brownback made joint efforts to ensure the passing of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in 2006. Obama promises to enhance prosperity by instituting an Add Value to the Agriculture Initiative, which would generate financial support that will provide seed capital and practical aid to small and medium enterprises, and reorganize the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
His government would commence the Global Energy and Environment Initiative to make sure that low carbon energy technology is accessible to African nations so that they can beneficially take part in the new international carbon market which would pave the way for firm economic growth even while the humankind radically cuts down on its greenhouse gas emissions. It also wishes to implement plans to beef up the African Growth and Opportunity Act to make certain that African producers have easier access to the U.S. markets and would promote increased American investment in the African continent.
Latin America & the Caribbean
To date the American policy has been inattentive toward allies, unproductive with foes, unaware of the challenges that affect people’s lives and incompetent of promoting the US’s interests in the Latin American and the Caribbean region. As South America has altered, the United States has maintained a distance from the region, contributing no convincing ideology and thus has generated an emptiness, which is capitalized on by demagogues to propagate an anti-American feeling. Obama is conscious of the seriousness of the situation and is determined to reestablish diplomatic ties across the hemisphere by means of insistent, ethical and sustained diplomacy in the region right from the day he steps into the Oval Office. He plans to reinforce U.S. interests in the Americas by practicing a strategy that sponsors equality, prospects and security and would treat American hemispheric allies and neighbors with poise and esteem.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are resolved to endorse a healthy democracy that is sustainable in the everyday lives of the common people of the Americas. The policy adopted towards Cuba would authorize the best American ambassadors with freedom and allow unconstrained Cuban-American family travel along with remissions to the island. By making use of hard-lined and righteous bilateral diplomacy Obama would send across a vital message that if a post-Fidel regime takes major steps in the direction of a democratic system starting with releasing all political hostages, the U.S. is all set to make efforts to put relations on a normal footing and alleviate the impediment that has been a governing factor in associations between Cuba and the United States of America for the past five decades. Across the hemisphere, Obama would work to put together the building blocks of resilient democracies—tough legislatures, sovereign judiciaries, freedom of the press, energetic civil social order, sincere police forces, religious autonomy and the just laws.
The administration would rally the South American nations into an updated Energy Partnership for the Americas, which could build a road leading the partner nations towards sustainable development and clean energy. It would summon the American civil society to unite in this effort by means of an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who would travel across the region extensively to help build up clean energy solutions. Obama administration would significantly increase the aids to the Latin American and Caribbean region and pursue the Millennium Development Goal of reducing severe poverty around the globe by half within 2015, and intend to double the foreign aid funds to $50 billion in order to realize that goal. They believe that doing business with foreign realms would allow the American economy to flourish and would create more openings in the American employment scenario. It would also present a case of strong opposition against pacts, which undermine American economic security and would make use of trade indentures to distribute efficient labor and promote environmental standards around the world.
Obama believes that all causes of anxiety should be cracked down by introducing a new hemispheric security program. This proposal would further the sense of collaboration across the region and would help in skirmishing gangs, illegal dealings and brutal criminal operations. It would endeavor to seek the most efficient practices that work within the American continent and also would analyze and modify approaches to make policies effective in each country.
Iran
The problem in Iran is that Iran has been hunting for nuclear weaponry and continues to provide backup for militants within Iraq and thus has spread terror in the region. In addition, authorities in Iranian have been a source of intimidation to Israel. However, the Obama leadership considers that the non-military alternatives to encounter this threat posed by Iran have not yet been fatigued and that are ways of tackling this menace diplomatically. Thus, when the Bush regime threatened to go to war, Obama criticized this decision in a similar way in which he had opposed the war in Iraq. Obama and his running partner Biden were against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which professes the utilization of the military existence in Iraq to offset the hazard posed by Iran.
Obama’s policies do not approve of the theory and argue that it was irresponsible on part of the Congress to present the Bush government any rationalization to prolong the Iraq War or in fact attack Iran. Obama also brought in a resolution in the Senate asserting that no act of Congress, which even includes the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, authorizes the Bush government to go to war against Iran. Obama believes that strong and direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without any prerequisites is the answer to the Iranian problem.
He considers that Iran must be put under direct pressure to bring about an alteration in Iran’s troubling stance. Obama regime plans to present the Iranian government with an option. On Iran’s discarding its nuclear policies and endorsement for terrorism, America plans to offer incentives like providing membership to the World Trade Organization, economic ventures in the Iranian markets, and a shift in the direction of standard diplomatic relations. However, if Iran persists with its disturbing activities the Obama administration promises to increase economic strain and political segregation. It believes that the push for such an all-inclusive agreement with Iran is the most efficient manner in which an improvement could be brought about.
Israel
Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden view Israel as a key ally in the Middle East consider the obligation towards the security of Israel an unquestionable priority. They endorse this bond and proclaim that the United States would never detach itself from this close association. During the Lebanon conflict in July 2006, Barack Obama expressed his strong support for Israeli right to guard itself against Hezbollah incursions and rocket assaults by patronizing a Senate resolution in opposition to Iran and Syria’s attachment in the war, and maintaining a stance that Israel should not be forced into a ceasefire. Obama-Biden regime strongly endorses Israel’s right to safeguard its people. Obama and Biden have repeatedly fended for foreign aid to Israel. They support and have stood up in favor of the annual foreign aid package that incorporates both martial and financial help to Israel and has campaigned for amplified foreign aid budgets. They have also asserted that U.S. collaboration with Israel in relation to the improvement of missile defense structures is necessary.
On Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The new administration plans on taking steps forward on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict issue and making it a foremost diplomatic concern. They intend to toil hard with both the Israelis and Palestinians and make efforts for a continual push to attain the objective of two states- a Jewish land in Israel and a Palestinian state, existing alongside each other in harmony and to ensure that the security arrangements are adequate.
Ending the War on Iraq
Inadequate security measures and political advancement have been a major concern in the Iraqi war. Several lives of American troops have been lost in order to decrease civilian causalities to a much-reduced level. However, in spite of improved security conditions the Iraqi administration has not responded by coming forward to lead its populace to reach a political stability, which was the original objective of the surge. The war is taxing for American troops as well as their families. Military machinery is exhausting out at an increased rate of nine times than the normal rate due to prolonged use in Iraq’s harsh environment.
The judgment to march into Iraq deviated resource utilizations from the operations in Afghanistan. More than 4,000 American lives have been lost in the long-lasting warfare and the expenditure estimates amount to a sum of $2.7 trillion with no fruitful results. On the contrary, it is taking the shape of a dividing force back in America. Immediately after taking office, Obama plans to authorize a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The withdrawal of troops would be conscientious and phased and in discussion with the Iraqi administration. As per plans, a residual force will stay behind in Iraq to operate on counter-terrorism assignments against Al Qaeda in Iraq and to secure American ambassadorial personnel. They would restrain from setting up stable bases in Iraq but would persist with missions to prepare and support the Iraqi security services until the Iraqi authorities direct their efforts towards a political ceasefire and move away from sectarianism. This is important, as this would ultimately gain the confidence of the local population. It was seen in earlier campaigns such as Bosnia that adversaries gained footholds while cornered for a long period. Here “having lost the hope of keeping Croatia and Slovenia under his control, Milosevic dared the rest of Europe to deny his plan to retain control of Bosnia“. Thus, withdrawal of troops would certainly be a positive strategy.
Conclusion
As understood by the new administration that with a changing world situation, continuing the strategy of American preponderance would cause disastrous effects. Fighting wars are expensive and take its toll on the economy. With the current economic crisis, mounting going to war is not a feasible option anymore. Even exerting uncalculated pressure on countries may backfire and pose a threat to American security. The new president believes that the time has come to remake America. He understands the essentiality of tempering characteristics of humbleness and restraint. The new American strategy would be to lead the world, ushering the international community into a new epoch of peace and harmony, which would be furthering the cause of global security policies as well as its own internal security.
Works Cited
Art, Robert J; A Grand Strategy for America; Cornell University Press, 2003; pp 123.
Douglas, Frank R; The United States, NATO, and a New Multilateral Relationship, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007.
Mazlish, Bruce, Nayan Chanda, Kenneth Weisbrode; The Paradox of a Global USA; Stanford University Press, 2009.
McKendrick, David G;Global strategy and population-level learning: the case of hard disk drives; Strategic Management Journal; 22, 4, 307-334; Information Storage Industry Center, University of California, 2009.
Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Cote, Jr., Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven Miller (eds); Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict; Edition: 2, revised; MIT Press, 2001; pp- 258.
Nuechterlein, Donald Edwin; America Recommitted: A Superpower Assesses Its Role in a Turbulent World; Edition: 2, revised; University Press of Kentucky, 2001; pp- 246.
Schuler, Douglas A; Public affairs, issues management, and political strategy: methodological approaches that count; Journal of Public Affairs; 1, 4, 336-355, Henry Stewart Publications; Jesse H. Jones School of Management, Rice University, 2008.
Sinclair, Timothy J; Global Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science; Taylor & Francis, 2003; pp 247.