Nice work; I agree that Nixon and Kissinger changed international relations for the better. I would like to complement your response, adding the following information. First, Nixon and Kissinger used Grand Strategy to influence the Soviet Union to curb Israel and prevent the conflict (Simmons et al., 2011, p. 8). The United States tried to maintain a status quo in its relationships with conflicting states and allies, and Kissinger compared this approach to a chess game. At the same time, he believed that Nixon’s search for peace “could not be the primary objective of the major powers” and that “effective diplomacy required the possible use of military powers” (Schwartz, 2019, para. 2). Kissinger claimed that international order and peace could only occur if all nations pursued their interests with legitimacy. For this reason, he always tried to discuss any conflicting issues and find the most appropriate and beneficial solutions to all. Kissinger’s negotiation skills were successfully used in foreign diplomacy of the United States.
Nixon’s input in the development of international relations was also great. He signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that helped improve relationships between the United States and the Soviet Union, decreasing the threat of nuclear weapons (Richard Nixon’s Top Domestic and Foreign Policy Achievements, 2021). The President ended the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and announced the foreign policy doctrine that demanded the state to act within its national interests (Richard Nixon’s Top, 2021). Moreover, Nixon established new relationships with the Middle East, removing the strong impact of the Soviet Union from this region. All these actions made a long-lasting effect on U.S. foreign policy, which can be seen in the current international relations.
You did not mention whether the current U.S. foreign policy mirrors Nixon’s approach to China and the Middle East, so I will comment on this issue. During the Presidency of Barack Obama, Nixon’s diplomacy was mostly followed since Obama tried to maintain a neutral position in relation to these regions. However, President Trump does not follow Nixon’s approach, making his foreign policy more unpredictable and even provocative. Instead of trying to preserve positive trade relationships with China, Trump scapegoated this country, which led to a trade deficit and big tariffs against it (Bentley & Lerner, 2021, p. 356). His decision affected the world negatively, decreasing stock prices across Asia. Despite the difference between Trump’s and Nixon’s approaches, their unpredictability and spontaneity helped their foreign policies remain successful.
Your stance that Nixon’s foreign diplomacy was unsuccessful and did more harm than good is interesting. In my response, I tried to focus mostly on Nixon’s and Kissinger’s achievements and the positive sides of their policies. However, your response made me reconsider my approach and search for opposite opinions. Thus, you mentioned that Nixon’s policies toward Vietnam resulted in the civil war and the Khmer Rouge genocide. I agree with you that President’s decision to send troops into Cambodia was harmful to the Vietnamese people. However, if we considered Nixon’s role in the well-being of American citizens, his efforts would be successful. Nixon ended the U.S. participation in the Vietnam War and brought the prisoners of war home (Richard Nixon’s Top Domestic and Foreign Policy Achievements, 2021). I think that Nixon’s foreign policy should be valued for this action, despite his other shortcomings and failures.
Moreover, Nixon supported Israel during the October War, which led to peace talks between Egypt and Israel later. Nixon supplied Israel with weapons because he was afraid of its defeat (The 1973 Arab-Israeli War, n. d.). When the Soviet Union threatened Nixon, demanding him to send troops to Egypt, President put its nuclear forces on worldwide alert, and this decision led to the ceasefire (The 1973 Arab-Israeli War, n. d.). I think that even if Nixon acted in the interests of the United States, his actions helped end the war between Egypt and Israel.
You also compare Nixon to Obama, but I think that he has more in common with President Trump. Both leaders used unpredictability in their decisions, and both tried to attain their goals by any means (Bentley & Lerner, 2021, p. 355). Still, I agree with you that Obama’s failures were similar to Nixon’s, and both Presidents failed to perform their administrative roles successfully.
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that Nixon’s visit to China at the time when it was the biggest enemy of the United States had a positive impact on the U.S.-Chinese relationships. In 1971, President Nixon visited the People’s Republic of China, and this rapprochement helped the U.S. end the war with a “more powerful Communist country in Southeast Asia” (The Opening of China, 2021). What is more, China became an ally and the largest foreign investor in the United States. I believe that this achievement is worth attention because it had a long-termed effect on the U.S.-Chinese trade relationships. If Trump did not use his anti-China rhetoric, these trade relations would continue in the future. However, the current President’s foreign policies differ from Nixon’s and Kissinger’s, and their effect on the country will be seen only in the future.
References
Bentley, M., & Lerner, A. B. (2021). Introduction: Trump and unpredictability in international relations.Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 34(3), 348-359. Web.
Richard Nixon’s top domestic and foreign policy achievements. (2021). Richard Nixon Foundation. Web.
The opening of China. (2021). Nixon Foundation. Web.
The 1973 Arab-Israeli War. (n. d.). Office of the historian. Web.