Important Factors of the America’s Foreign Policies
Foreign policies are used by governments to enhance their diplomatic relationships. Such policies are aimed at protecting a country’s sovereignty, defending territorial integrity, maintaining economic and diplomatic aspects, and spearheading strategic as well as military interests.
In other contexts, president’s personality determines the type of the foreign policies that his regime will adopt. For, example, Bush administration was attracted to the application of Munich’s analogy in Iraq. This is a critical provision when considered closely.
Bureaucracies may be motivated by the leader’s urge for political survival. By engaging in war, the government gets to divert the public attention from the regime’s failures in order to maintain obtain support. For instance, president Bush’ administration waged war on the Iraq government as a way of diverting the attention of the media.
America shares different ideologies with different countries on viable foreign policies that should be adopted.
Nonetheless, such ideologies have received bitter sentiments from politicians and the international community at large. Interest groups consisting of economical and occupational activists made demands on the U.S. government on certain policies.
By lobbying, they were able to mobilize the public officials for the government to ratify the policies proposed. This was a critical provision when considered critically in diverse contexts. It is vital to understand the roles that the U.S. has played in the establishment of viable foreign policies.
Contextually, some activists who are much interested in the U.S.’s foreign policies on other countries have made remarkable steps in the protection of human rights.
On the basis of religion, American policies are idealized on millennial themes that can be traced back to 17th century. President Bush used religious concepts in his speeches to reshape his ultimate objectives on terrorism.
Influence of American Foreign policies in the Postwar Era
Internationally, America has advocated for human rights provisions through viable tools such as National Endowment Policy. The U.S. government gives cash grants to democratic institutions all over the world to strengthen them.
In the postwar era, the government has echoed the cries of various human rights groups all over the world and has offered to support them throughout their advocacies for human rights restoration in their respective countries.
War on drugs has also been a priority to the U.S’s government. By controlling import of illicit drugs including cocaine, heroin, cannabis and opium, the U.S. protected Latin America governments by providing them with intelligent reports on drug lords and their operations.
The government also signed an agreement with China to stop shipment of opium in 1880. America also supports foreign governments, which at times goes to the extent of military aid. In 2010, the U.S government gave 6.50 billion dollars in form of aid to Afghanistan.
The U.S. has endeavored to create good relations with the Saudi Arabia government since the gulf war. Concurrently, after the Vietnam War, President Bill Clinton formalized an agreement with the Vietnam government to enhance peace as a post war influence.
America’s relationship[ with the major communist countries of East Europe strengthened ties decades ago since the collapse of the Soviet Union as inspired by the outcome of cold war.
The countries are now more capitalistic than before. America was also thought to have alienated Serbia when it supported Kosovo Albanians and Croatians. It is a critical provision in the context of international relations.
In addition, ineffective public relations in Mideast ruined the America’s name. There have also been reports on the misuse of public wealth meant to fund wars against terror.
Reasons for the America’s Foreign Policies Orientation
Foreign policy orientation is necessary in order to get public opinion in such matters that are deemed important and of great interest to the public. In an ideological system, a pragmatic majority made up of the mass public have little role in shaping a decision-making process.
However, the moral minority composed of the elite have less moderate but a stronger and influential ideologies on foreign policies. They are more emotional and are considered to be of both national and international affairs as well as sporadic effects.
The orientation also tends to be stable in that the norms governing such policies are rare. This is a considerable provision as indicated before. They resist change because their formation begins earlier in life and are passed on to other generations through political socialization.
The orientations are aimed at influencing public opinion, and they also affect the electoral process as well as voters’ choice.
Concurrently, they are aimed at consolidating democracies and new markets, pursuing humanitarian agenda, countering aggression, and gaining the support of states considered hostile to democratic processes and free markets. Such initiatives also affect groupings or/and social movements in the local politics.
America as the Policeman of the World
American has been and is still the protector of the oppressed and the weak. Without the U.S.’s intervention in defending and guarding human rights and democracies, most parts of the world would have been cast off for the tyranny rule. Without its intervention, most regions would have been dwelling lawlessly.
This would likely hinder economic growth and peace all over the world. Like any police service in the world, not all actions might be right. So, a legitimate criticism is accepted. However, criticizing a police force is far much different from rebuking the existence of one.
The USFP has always been staged to promote peace for all by strengthening governments in terms of weaponry and technical support. Most countries have managed to defeat terrorist groups in this regard.
The Major Differences Between President Obama and Bush’ Foreign Policies
Although both governments have implemented policies aimed at ensuring safety for all Americans, the Bush’ administration was marked by tension all over the country.
Although Bush saw Iraq as a potential threat to America’s peace and econnomy, the Obama’s government planned to withdraw all the American troops from the country. Moreover, Obama clearly stated that America was not an enemy of the Muslim world.
However, President Bush never made such a stance in his foreign policies. Both governments had similar stance when it comes to fighting Alqaeda and Taliban. Concurrently, Bush’s government did not have clear policies on how to deal with the matter.
Obama planned to empower other governments facing direct threats of terrorism in order to win the war against terror. This is a vital provision in the context of international relations. Additionally, there are reports on the misuse of public resources meant to support wars against terror.
It is vital to conclude that Bush and Obama had varying policies in regard to war against terrorism; nonetheless, none of them supported terrorism in anyway.