The US Foreign Policy - Article Example

Introduction The U.S currently holds a paradoxical position in international affairs largely because of its foreign policies on various issues such as security, business, climate, human rights, freedom, conflicts and health. Although the United States is considered and actually is a lone superpower, research has shown that the same factors that helped create this behemoth have limited its ability to influence the world through its foreign policies. This paper will therefore examine the key issues in the contemporary U.S foreign policy and with reference to the lines between domestic and international polices developed and formulated by the U.S for addressing social, economic and political issues across the globe. It will specifically look into the concerns that have come up regarding the increase in the magnitude of security problems, the increase in the number of actors wishing to join the drafting of foreign polices in the country and the public outcry on the implications of the blurred foreign policy on U.S citizens. This will paper will look at views from political analysts and authors of political science resources and critically analyze them with reference to the key contemporary issues in the U.S foreign policy . Many political analysts have compartmentalized the key issues in the contemporary U.S foreign policy into certain equations in the balance of power that distinguishes power political and cultural interrelations with economic structure of the U.S. Although the U.S has proved to be a military superpower that can never be matched, it has recently received harsh economic challenge from countries such as Japan, China, India, Russia and the European Union. The following key issues are considered to be the main shapers that underline the capabilities of the contemporary U.S foreign policy issues (Ole, 1989). In summary, they are; the intervention policies that include polices and actions on Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan; U.S national security and defence policies that include policy on North Korea nuclear program; trade polices in the U.S that include the Steel import tariffs, Cuba policy and Sino-American trade affairs; and finally the multilateral policy that include; the Kyoto protocol, international criminal court, IMF reforms, Rights of detainees especially at the Guantanamo etc. This economic challenge has given the U.S government a rough terrain that has forced it to device some unfriendly foreign policies that shape the international political system today. With the introduction of non-state elements that are modelled along power geopolitical lines, contemporary issues have come up such as terrorism, business laws, crime, humanitarianism ands other issues that are shifting the state-centric aspects of world politics towards a multipolar system. The first issue that the U.S foreign policy has strictly affected is the world security and more specifically the American security. Since the 9/11 attack, a security dilemma has been created that centre around resurgent great power from the U.S in terms of fighting terrorism. Terrorism has been fought under all quarters by the United States especially through immigration polices, increase funding for security programs and military action. Just at the beginning of this year, the United States launched an attack on Somalia in which suspected terrorists were flushed out and taken to Guantanamo. This process was widely criticized as harsh and inflicted serious harm to the Somali people (Michael, 2002) On the same note, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been long overdue and some critics are pointing an accusing finger to the Washington government for taking sides on the issue. Both the former and the previous U.S secretaries of state have made efforts to contain the conflict but it is currently far from over since international observers see lack of commitment by the U.S government to end the crisis. All this has been blamed on the kind of policy formulated by the United States towards the restoration of peace in the Gulf region and the Middle East. The U.S has recently announced that it was planning to station a missile defence facility both in the Czech Republic and in Poland. This idea has not gone well with countries such as Russia which see some kind of ill motives from the move. The Russian government has insisted that such a missile defence facility in Eastern Europe was not a defence agenda but rather an influence on the power of NATO over what was termed as the ‘American military reconfiguration’ in the region. This kind of security dilemma was first realized during the early days of President George W. Bush administration when he withdrew U.S participation from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. Another issue is the Iraq war which was launched by the U.S, U.K and other allies who felt that there was need to restore human dignity, democracy and justice in Iraq. This U.S led was has been widely criticized as a ‘one man show’ that was started without the exhaustion of non-violent methods. The Bush’s administration did not obey the jus ad Bello law that requires that innocent citizens and other non-combatants are protected from harm in a war environment (Robert, 2004). This invasion of Iraq is a culmination of poor international policy framework developed by the U.S that does not see the relevance of international bodies such as the U.N Security Council which is mandated with the task of spearheading peace, democracy and justice. The only punishment that the U.S wanted to apply on Iraq for its linkage with terrorism and injustice was through military action or through economic sanctions. When United Kingdom and United States invaded Iraq in the year 2003, there were views that Iraq was actually a dangerous state and it therefore needed to be restrained. This is because it was posing as a danger to European or American security. Under Liberal internationalism, the invasion can be viewed as curbing of a bad state. (Ole, 1989) The nuclear war affairs in the world have been taken a notch higher by plans by North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear programs which they have termed ‘energy nuclear programs’. The U.S has not taken this idea lightly and it has established military deployment sites to counter any move by Iran or North Korea to go ahead with the program. Currently, the U.S and North Korea are at loggerheads with this nuclear program launched. Critics of U.S foreign policy over this issue have argued that there is more to do with energy generation than the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by N. Korea but there is no attest on this. Since the U.S has vested interests in the Middle East region, the issue of North Korea nuclear plans remains unsolved because all actors cannot come to an agreement. The U.N for example would have been the body charged with that responsibility has failed because its operations are being influenced by the U.S including funding. (Steven and Ralph, 2005) Global warming is a case in study regarding the U.S foreign policy. The issue of global warming has been given priority and consequently, policies have been drafted to this effect. One of the legal documents that were developed to oversee the management and control of global warming was the Kyoto Protocol drafted in the late 1980s. By the end of 2006, the countries that have ratified most of the agreements stipulated by the Kyoto protocol totalled to 169 but conspicuously absent were the U.S, Japan and Germany which ironically contribute 85% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These countries believe that the agreements in the protocol will harm their economy and that it should be reviewed (Ole, 1989). According to the Kyoto Protocol, it was necessary to cut the emissions of the following greenhouse gases by the year 2020. These gases include; carbon dioxide, methane, hydro fluorocarbons, nitrous oxides, per fluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride. The U.S through its stringent foreign policy has not been able to set the way for developing countries to protect the environment. (Steven and Ralph, 2005) Although many political researchers believe that crafting an acceptable and defective foreign policy is a pluralistic process, there is more to do with the political will than to the reliability of this process. It is clear from history that there is some kind of waning and waxing of the U.S president’s predominance in the world. Take an issue such as the IMF reforms which are currently being influenced totally by the U.S. Although this is an institution that is vested with the mandate of ensuring that there is financial assistance for needy nations, it has been compromised by the U.S. The recent replacement debate of its director is an example that indicates existing influence by the U.S (Robert, 2004) As partisan loyalties become stronger and more actors get involved, the decisions that are made by the U .S government has affected the country’s social, economic, religious and political development either positively or negatively. Research has however indicated that the negative implications of most of the U .S foreign policy are stronger than the benefits thus the need to review them. Interest groups, members of the public including the U.S media, non-governmental and political activists, human rights organizations, members of the Congress among others have been pushing for greater participation in the drafting and implementation of U.S foreign policies (Michael, 2002). Both Clinton and Bush’s administrations condemned terrorism but the later has become vocal on this worthy issue because of the risk the American citizens are undertaking travelling around the world. There has been counter accusations especially between President George W. Bush and Muslim leaders over his targets in the fight against terrorism. The invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq has been termed as the ‘fight on Islam’ which according to Bush’s administration is not true. Its foreign policy of squarely dealing with countries that not only habour terrorists but also support terrorism has been condemned by many leaders. Majority of these leaders believe that it is time to negotiate on conflicts and come to a resounding agreement on this issue of terrorism without actually to shed blood. (Steven and Ralph, 2005) There is also increased public outcry on the issue of Bosnia. The U.S foreign policy on Bosnia has not been worthwhile because of the vested interests the country has in the issue. Some people believe that the U.N and the European Union can effectively resolve the crisis in Bosnia without the involvement of America. It has even been envisaged that the peace mission groups from African countries and Europe are greatly influenced financially by the U.S instead of the U.N. This has consistently compromised the ending of the crisis and some analysts have termed the situation in Bosnia as a ‘disaster in waiting’. (Michael, 2002) Another issue is the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in America through the Congress which was necessitated after the 9/11 terrorist attack and rise in crime levels in some States in the U.S. opponents of the U.S foreign policies on homeland security attach this move with discrimination and racial injustices. Although the whole idea was to protect U.S citizens from any form of prosecution relating to human right violations, the homeland security policy has a lot to do with racial prejudice and intolerance to other citizens from other countries that may be affected by the policy. (Ole, 1989) The U.S has recently adopted a National Energy Policy of 2005 which outlined some tax incentives aimed at reducing dependence of gasoline by the U.S automobile industry In the U.S, the federal budget for 2005 included tax incentives used to promote the use of fuel efficient alternatives that would help the country towards a step to the liberation of energy use. This overall policy is that by the end 2011, the U.S will factor in $ 4.1 billion as tax incentive for most industries to spur them to use cleaner forms of renewable energies that will not be very much dependent on gasoline. This policy is aimed at promoting U.S automobile manufactures to effectively utilize other forms of energy and in the process lock out the gasoline products especially from the Middle East. This policy has been developed with the pretext that oil prices have continued to rise thus punishing the U.S economy. On the other hand, there is speculation that oil producing countries are collaborating to kill the U.S economy through increased oil prices therefore resulting in more confusion. (Robert, 2004) One of the hotly debated issues when it comes to the politics of global markets is the U.S steel import tariffs. The overall policy on this matter has been heavily criticized because of the fact the U.S is trying to protect domestic companies from external competition in this industry and thus this does not conform to the sprit of trade liberalization. Every company in the world would want to market its products in the U.S and the steel manufacture industry does not escape this fact. Liberal and realist theory are quite practical in the real world (Steven and Ralph, 2005). There are so many examples that show how these concepts have been applied before. For example, the integration of Europe through the European Union is a good example of liberal theory in real life situation. The European Union is known to have helped unite so many nations. There are also other agreements that are economic based like NAFTA and ASEAN. The only ramifications of these are that in case some states do not cooperate then they can be curbed. (James and James, 1994) On a positive note, some U.S foreign polices have been praised for its impact to avert human catastrophe in countries considered to be volatile to peace. One such example is the Cuban missile crisis. The Cuban missile crisis occurred between three states that is the government of the United States, the Government of the Soviet Union and the government of Cuba at the time of President J.F Kennedy. The case of Cuba missile crisis is still rife up to today and the U.S still has vested interests in Cuba largely in terms of business associates, war allies and diplomatic cooperation. Another country is Sudan where millions of citizens have been subjected to poverty, rape, and hunger, lack of health care and constant war. The U.S has been supporting groups working in Sudan to improve the situation (Michael, 2002) Conclusion It has been pointed out that the U.S foreign policy has failed to meet the challenges of globalization, modernization and diversity in the current world. Issues such as the Iraq war, the Cuban missile crisis, the Palestinian-Israel conflict, the North Korea Nuclear crisis, the detentions at Guantanamo, steel import tariffs, stringent immigration laws, among other issues are just but a few cases that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of the U.S foreign policy. Although the basic political structure of the United States has been able to withstand challenges since 1789, recent international developments have suggested otherwise and that its foreign policies on several subjects is weakening this political structure. Some hawk-eyed observers are suggesting that the U.S government must be run by elites and experts who can balance international relations with domestic matters. Perhaps the foreign policy that is in place now has been actually crafted to benefit certain individuals in the military, specific politicians, government sympathizers among others. Likeminded individuals, international leaders and American citizens are encouraged to find expedient and apt ways of improving the U.S foreign policy to benefit all people. Reference On a separate paper Read More