Foreign policy of the United States
United States
This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
the United States
Federal government
• Constitution
• Taxation
Legislature
• Congress
• House
• Speaker
• Party Leaders
• Congressional districts
• Senate
• President pro tempore
• Party Leaders
Presidency
• President
• Vice President
• Cabinet
• Federal agencies
Judiciary
• Federal courts
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts of Appeal
• District Courts
Elections
• Presidential elections
• Midterm elections
Political Parties
• Democratic
• Republican
• Third parties
Subdivisions
• State government
• Governors
• Legislatures (List)
• State Courts
• Local Government
Other countries · Atlas
US Government Portal
The foreign policy of the United States is
the policy by which the United States inter-
acts with foreign nations. United States for-
eign policy is highly influential on the world
stage, as it is the only remaining superpower.
The global reach of the United States is
backed by a 13 trillion dollar economy, the
largest in the world of all countries formally
recognized by the United States for which
data is available is here; the military ex-
penditures for said countries is available
here; and the political details are available on
the main United States page here here.f> The officially stated goals of the foreign
policy of the United States, as mentioned in
the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Depart-
ment of State, are "to create a more secure,
democratic, and prosperous world for the be-
nefit of the American people and the interna-
tional community."[1] In addition, the United
States House Committee on Foreign Affairs
states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "ex-
port controls, including nonproliferation of
nuclear technology and nuclear hardware;
measures to foster commercial intercourse
with foreign nations and to safeguard Amer-
ican business abroad; International commod-
ity agreements; international education; and
protection of American citizens abroad and
expatriation."[2] U.S. foreign policy has been
the subject of much debate, criticism and
praise both domestically and abroad.[3]
Foreign policy powers of
the President and
Congress
Subject to the advice and consent role of the
U.S. Senate, the President of the United
States negotiates treaties with foreign na-
tions, but treaties enter into force only if rati-
fied by two-thirds of the Senate.[5] The Pres-
ident is also Commander in Chief of the Un-
ited States Armed Forces, and as such has
broad authority over the armed forces once
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
1
On August 15, 2008 President George W.
Bush stated: "Bullying and intimidation are
not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy
in the 21st century."[4]
they are deployed, however only Congress
has authority to declare war,[6] and the civil-
ian and military budget is written by the Con-
gress.[7] The United States Secretary of State
is the foreign minister of the United States
and is the primary conductor of state-to-state
diplomacy. Both the Secretary of State and
ambassadors are appointed by the President,
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Congress also has power to regulate com-
merce with foreign nations.
Brief history
1776–1898
From the establishment of the United States
after the American Revolution until
the
Spanish-American War, U.S. foreign policy
reflected the country’s regional, as compared
to global, focus.
During the American Revolution, the Un-
ited States established relations with several
European powers, convincing France, Spain,
and the Netherlands to intervene in its war
against Britain, a mutual enemy. After the re-
volution, the U.S. moved to restore peace and
resume its substantial trade with Great Bri-
tain in what is called the "Olive Branch
Policy". Following French involvment in the
Revolution, led by Gilbert du Motier, marquis
de La Fayette, the United States maintained
significant relations with France, as manifes-
ted by presenting the United States with the
Statue of Liberty in 1886.
In general, though, the United States fol-
lowed an isolationist foreign policy until at-
tacks against U.S. shipping by Barbary Coast
Captain William Bainbridge paying the US
tribute to the Dey of Algiers, circa 1800
corsairs spurred the country into developing
a naval force projection capability, resulting
in the First Barbary War in 1801. Early politi-
cians debated the wisdom of developing a
navy and becoming involved in international
affairs, but the United States Navy was cre-
ated to prevent further economic losses: pay-
ments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary
pirate states amounted to 20% of United
States government annual
revenues
in
1800.[8] Following that conflict, the United
States engaged in a quasi-war with France
and the War of 1812 with Great Britain.
In response to the new independence of
Spanish colonies in Latin America in the
early 1800s, the United States established
the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, a policy declar-
ing its opposition to European interference in
the Americas. Around the same time, U.S. ex-
pansion, ideologically fueled by "manifest
destiny", led to the Indian Wars and war
against Mexico, with the U.S. taking what are
now the territories of Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California, and to diplomatic
conflict with the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland and Russia over the Ore-
gon Territory and with Spain over Florida. In
1854, the U.S. used its Navy to force Japan to
open to
international
trade. During the
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
2
American Civil War, the Union states accused
Britain and France of supporting the Confed-
erate States.
After the end of conflict with the British
military in 1815, consolidating its territories
following the Civil War and the withdrawal of
the last remnants of French influence in the
region in 1867 when Mexican forces deposed
Emperor Maximilian, the United States was
unchallenged regionally. This stability, com-
bined with the country’s natural resources
and growing population, resulted in substan-
tial domestic prosperity and growth of geo-
political influence.
1893 - 1914
On January 16, 1893, United States diplomat-
ic and military personnel conspired with a
small group of individuals to overthrow the
constitutional government of the Hawaiian
Kingdom and prepared to provide for annexa-
tion of the Hawaiian Islands to the United
States of America, under a treaty of annexa-
tion submitted to the US Senate, on February
15, 1893.
Victory in the Spanish-American War of
1898, and the subsequent acquisition of
Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam,
marked the United States’ shift from a re-
gional to a more global power and ejected
Spain from the Americas, South East Asia
and Oceania. The Philippine-American War
arose from the on-going Philippine Revolu-
tion
against
imperialism.[9] The
1904
Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,
proclaiming a right for the United States to
intervene to stabilize weak states in the
Americas, further weakened European influ-
ence in Latin America and established U.S.
regional hegemony.
World War I (1914–1918)
Despite its reluctance to directly involve it-
self in continental European affairs, the Un-
ited States provided substantial loans to the
Allies, but only entered World War I after at-
tacks by German U-boats substantially in-
terfered with U.S. shipping. During the peace
conference at Versailles, U.S. attempts to
shift international relations to an idealist by
President Woodrow Wilson’s
Fourteen
Points,(e.g.Sykes–Picot
Agreement) made
during the war and geopolitical horse-trad-
ing. The United States benefited from its ex-
panded visibility and role in international
Donald Rumsfeld as U.S. special envoy to the
Middle East, meets Saddam Hussein on
19-20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited
again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN re-
ported that Iraq had used mustard gas and
tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.[10]
commerce but did not sign the treaty or par-
ticipate in the League of Nations, which was
created at the conference. U.S. domestic
politics turned against idealist, international
policies and the country returned to a more
isolationist stance. The United States signed
separate peace treaties with Germany,[11]
Austria,[12] and Hungary[13] in August 1921.
World War II (1941–1945)
Similar to their involvement in WWI, the Un-
ited States made significant loans to the Al-
lies, and following the depression, its domest-
ic industries boomed to produce war materi-
als. The United States entered World War II
in 1941, again on the Allied side, following
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the
subsequent declaration of war against the
U.S. by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After
the war and devastation of its European and
Asian rivals, the United States completed its
transition from regional to global power. The
United States was a major player in the es-
tablishment of the United Nations and be-
came one of five permanent members of the
Security Council, which holds greater power
than the General Assembly.
Cold War (1945–1991)
From about the mid-40s until 1991, U.S. for-
eign policy was dominated by the Cold War,
and characterized by its significant interna-
tional military presence and greater diplo-
matic involvement. Seeking an alternative to
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
3
the isolationist policies pursued after World
War I, the United States defined a new policy
called containment to oppose the spread of
communism. The Cold War was characterized
by a lack of global wars but a persistence of
regional wars, often fought between client
states and proxies of the United States and
Soviet Union. During the Cold War, U.S. for-
eign policy objectives seeking to limit Soviet
influence, involved the United States and its
allies in the Korean War, the overthrow of
the KGB supported Iranian government, the
Vietnam War, the Six Day War and Yom Kip-
pur War in the Middle East, and later, the
policy of aiding anti-Soviet Mujahideen forces
in Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone).[14] Diplo-
matic initiatives included the establishment
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the opening of People’s Republic of
China and Detente.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S.
President George W. Bush
By the time of the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991, the U.S. had military and eco-
nomic interests in every region of the globe.
In March 1992, the New York Times received
leaked parts of a "Defense Policy Guidance"
document prepared by two principle authors
at
the U.S. Defense Department, Paul
Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby. The policy doc-
ument laid bare the post-cold war framework
through which U.S. foreign policy would
hence forth be guided.[15]
1992 - present
December 1991 marked both the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the initiation of the Gulf
War against Iraq in response to Iraq’s inva-
sion of Kuwait. After the Gulf War, many
scholars, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, claim
the lack of a new strategic vision for U.S. for-
eign policy
resulted
in many missed
opportunities for its foreign policy. During
the 1990s, the United States mostly scaled
back its foreign policy budget while focusing
on its domestic economic prosperity. The Un-
ited States also bombarded and participated
in UN peacekeeping missions in the former
Yugoslavia.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks on
the World Trade Center in New York City and
Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the United
States declared a "War on Terrorism." Since
then,
the United States
launched wars
against Afghanistan and Iraq (Second Gulf
War) while pursuing Al-Qaeda and other mil-
itant organizations on a global level.[16]
In his first formal television interview as
President, Barack Obama addressed the
Muslim world through an Arabic-language
satellite TV network. He expressed interest
and a commitment to repair relations that
have deteriorated under the previous admin-
istration. [17]
Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe
the foreign policy doctrine of United States
president George W. Bush. Scholars identify
seven different "Bush Doctrines," including
the willingness to use a "coalition of the will-
ing" if the United Nations Security Council
refuses to sanction violence, the doctrine of
preemptive war, and the president’s second-
term "freedom agenda".[18] Critics of the
Bush Doctrine are suspicious of the increas-
ing willingness of the US to use military force
unilaterally.[19] It is also argued that the
Bush Doctrine is too ideological and not prag-
matic enough. There are further criticisms of
the neoconservative foreign interventionism
ideology.[20]
Foreign policy law
In the United States, the term "treaty" is
used in a more restricted legal sense than in
international
law. U.S.
law distinguishes
what it calls treaties, which are derived from
the Treaty Clause of the United States Con-
stitution,
from
congressional-executive
agreements and executive agreements. All
three classes are considered treaties under
international law; they are distinct only from
the perspective of internal United States law.
The distinctions are primarily concerning
their method of ratification (by 2/3rds of the
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
4
Senate, by normal legislative process, or by
the President alone) and their relationship to
domestic law.
Congressional-executive agree-
ments vs. treaties
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Con-
stitution grants power to the President to
make treaties with the "advice and consent"
of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different
from normal legislation which requires ap-
proval by simple majorities in both the Sen-
ate and the House of Representatives.
However, throughout U.S. history, the
President has also made "international agree-
ments"
through congressional-executive
agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with
only a majority from both houses of Con-
gress, or sole-executive agreements made
by the President alone. Though the constitu-
tion does not expressly provide for any al-
ternative procedure and although some noted
constitutional scholars, such as Laurence
Tribe, believe that CEAs are unconstitutional,
the Supreme Court of the United States has
considered these agreements to be valid, and
that any disagreements are a political ques-
tion
for
the executive and
legislative
branches to work out amongst themselves. In
addition, U.S. law distinguishes between self-
executing treaties, which do not require addi-
tional legislative action, and non-self-execut-
ing treaties which do require the enactment
of new laws.
Domestic vs. international law
The United States takes a different view from
many other nations concerning the relation-
ship between international and domestic law.
Unlike nations that view international treat-
ies and statutes as always superseding do-
mestic law, international agreements instead
are incorporated into the body of U.S. federal
law. As a result, Congress can modify or re-
peal treaties by subsequent legislative action,
even if this amounts to a violation of the
treaty under international law. The 1900 Su-
preme Court ruling in the Paquete Habana
declared that
in the absence of clearly
delineated, pre-existing statues
(a "con-
trolling executive act"), customary interna-
tional law is applied. However, this also
meant that if a law or statute already ex-
pressly allowed an action, it would be legal
regardless of international law. This was
further codified by the 1986 decision of the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Garcia-Mir v.
Meese.
In 1920, the Supreme Court ruled in Mis-
souri v. Holland that international treaties
carry the same weight as does any provision
of the Constitution, and are binding on all
states of the Union regardless of their own
individual laws. This was seen as a possibly
means of subverting constitutional provisions
by way of a bilateral treaty. Nearly forty
years later, though, in Reid v. Covert, the
Court specified that any international agree-
ment inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution
is void under domestic law - the same as any
other federal law in conflict with the Consti-
tution - and while the Supreme Court could
potentially rule a treaty provision to be un-
constitutional and void under domestic law, it
has never done so.
The United States is not a party to the
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treat-
ies. However, the State Department has
taken the position that it is still binding, in
that the Convention represents established
customary law. The U.S. habitually includes
in treaty negotiations the reservation that it
will assume no obligations that are in viola-
tion of the U.S. Constitution, as mandated by
the Supreme Court’s
ruling
in Reid.
However, the Vienna Convention provides
that states are not excused from their treaty
obligations on the grounds that they violate
the state’s constitution, unless the violation is
manifestly obvious at the time of contracting
the treaty. So for instance, if the Supreme
Court found that a treaty violated the Consti-
tution, it would no longer be binding on the
United States under domestic law, but it
would still be binding on the U.S. under in-
ternational law - unless its unconstitutionality
was manifestly obvious to other states at the
time of the treaty’s signing. It has also been
argued by foreign governments and by inter-
national human rights advocates that many of
these American reservations are so vague
and broad as to be invalid. They are also in-
valid as being in violation of the Vienna Con-
vention.<<< No longer true. See Medellín v.
Texas
Geography of the USA
foreign policy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
5
Diplomatic relations
Map indicating states and territories and
their diplomatic relations with the U.S.
the United States
Nations with which
the U.S. has diplomatic relations
Nations
with which the US does not have diplomatic
relations
disputed areas
President of the United States, George W.
Bush (right) at Camp David in March 2003,
hosting then British Prime Minister Tony
Blair.
The United States has one of the largest dip-
lomatic presences of any nation. Almost
every country in the world has both a U.S.
embassy and an embassy of its own in Wash-
ington, D.C. Only a few countries do not have
formal diplomatic relations with the United
States. They are:
•
Bhutan (the U.S. Embassy in New
Delhi, India has consular responsibilities
for Bhutan)[21]
•
Cuba
•
Iran (the ambassador of Switzerland
acts as intermediary between Iran and
United States)
•
North Korea
•
Taiwan* (American Institute in
Taiwan, under Taiwan Relations Act, is the
de facto US Embassy)
•
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
(Western Sahara)*
•
South Ossetia*
•
Abkhazia*
*These countries are not generally recog-
nized (see List of unrecognized countries)
In practical terms however, this lack of
formal relations do not impede the U.S.’s
communication with these nations. In the
cases where no U.S. diplomatic post exists,
American relations are usually conducted via
the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, or
another friendly third-party. In the case of
the Taiwan (Republic of China), de facto dip-
lomatic relations are conducted through the
American Institute in Taiwan. United States
relations with Taiwan are generally cordial,
but are not formal due to the recognition of
the Peoples Republic of China as the sole
Chinese regime. The U.S. also operates an
"Interests Section in Havana". While this
does not create a formal diplomatic relation-
ship, it fulfils most other typical embassy
functions.
Territorial disputes
The United States is involved with several
territorial disputes, including maritime dis-
putes with Canada over the Dixon Entrance,
Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Northw-
est Passage, and areas around Machias Seal
Island and North Rock.[22] These disputes
have become dormant recently, and are
largely considered not to affect the strong re-
lations between the two nations.
Other disputes include:
• The U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay,
which is leased from Cuba. Only mutual
agreement or U.S. abandonment of the
area can terminate the lease. Cuba
contends that the lease is invalid as the
Platt Amendment creating the lease was
included in the Cuban Constitution under
threat of force and thus is voided by
article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties. However, even
though the conditions surrounding the
lease agreement can be debated, the
fourth article of that same treaty specifies
the non-retroactivity of its law on treaties
made before it.
• Haiti claims Navassa Island.
• The U.S. has made no territorial claim in
Antarctica (but has reserved the right to
do so) and does not recognize the claims
of any other nation.
• The Marshall Islands claim Wake Island.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
6
The U.S. maintains a Normal Trade Relations
list and several countries are excluded from
it, which means that their exports to the Un-
ited States are subject to significantly higher
tariffs.
Allies
Further information: Special relationship
Further information: Anglosphere
A map of allies of the United States
NATO member states, including their
colonies and overseas possessions
Major
non-NATO allies, plus Republic of China
(Taiwan)
Signatories of Partnership for
Peace with NATO
The United States is a founding member of
NATO, the world’s largest military alliance.
The 28 nation alliance consists of Canada and
much of Europe. Under the NATO charter,
the United States is compelled to defend any
NATO state that is attacked by a foreign
power. NATO is restricted to within the
North American and European areas. Start-
ing in 1989, the United States also created a
major non-NATO ally status (MNNA) for five
nations; this number was increased in the
late 1990s and following the September 11
attacks; it currently includes fourteen na-
tions. Each such state has a unique relation-
ship with the United States, involving various
military and economic partnerships and
alliances.
The United States, has seven major non-
NATO allies in the Greater Middle East re-
gion. In particular, Israel is provided by the
US with billions in foreign aid annually (see
Israel–United States relations). President
Bush supported the 2006 Lebanon War and
said Israel has a right to defend itself.[23] In
January, 2007, the State Department in-
formed Congress of preliminary findings that
Israel may have violated agreements by using
cluster bombs against civilian populated
areas. A final determination has not been
made.
Israel
has
denied
violating
In recent years, relations between the United
States and India have improved. Shown here
are Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh
and George W. Bush exchanging handshakes
in March 2006.
agreements, saying that it had acted in self-
defense.[24] Other MNNA and NATO allies in-
clude South Korea, Germany, Poland, Turkey,
Pakistan, and Japan.
Taiwan (Republic of China), does not have
official diplomatic relations recognized and is
no longer officially recognized by the State
Department of the United States, but it con-
ducts unofficial diplomatic relations through
their de facto embassy, commonly known as
the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Repres-
entative Office (TECRO)", and is considered
to be a strong Asian ally of the United States.
In 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush
and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
signed a landmark agreement between the
two countries on civilian nuclear energy co-
operation. The deal is significant because In-
dia is not a member of the Nuclear Nonprolif-
eration Treaty and detonated a nuclear
device in 1974. The deal will greatly increase
strategic and economic cooperation between
the world’s two largest democracies.[25].The
U.S. has refused to give a similar deal to
Pakistan, which also has nuclear capability.
Barack Obama has pledged to "build a
close strategic partnership" between the U.S.
and India.[27]
U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice
signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement
with Bulgaria, a new NATO member, in 2006.
The treaty allows the U.S. (not NATO) to de-
velop as joint US-Bulgarian facilities the Bul-
garian air bases at Bezmer (near Yambol)
and Graf Ignatievo (near Plovdiv), the Novo
Selo training range (near Sliven), and a lo-
gistics centre in Aytos, as well as to use the
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
7
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili with
George W. Bush. "The United States of Amer-
ica will continue to support Georgia’s demo-
cracy. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of
Georgia, and the United States will work with
our allies to ensure Georgia’s independence
and territorial integrity," Bush said.[26]
commercial port of Burgas. At least 2,500
U.S. personnel will be located there. The
treaty also allows the U.S. to use the bases
"for missions in tiers country without a spe-
cific authorization from Bulgarian authorit-
ies," and grants U.S. militaries immunity
from prosecution in this country.[28] Another
agreement with Romania permits the U.S. to
use the Mihail Kogălniceanu base and anoth-
er one nearby.[28]
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili
sees membership of the NATO as a premise
of stability for Georgia. On March 9, 2007,
President Saakashvili announced his plans to
increase total Georgian troop strength in Iraq
to 2000, making Georgia one of the biggest
supporters of Coalition Forces, and keeping
its troops in Kosovo and Afghanistan.[30] Fol-
lowing the outbreak of war between Georgia
and Russia on August 8, 2008, Mikheil
Saakashvili said that Georgia was pulling its
entire 2,000-strong contingent of troops from
Iraq.[31] During the 10th and 11th of August
the US Air Force airlifted the whole contigent
out of Iraq.[32] There have been some con-
cerns about Saakashvili monopolizing power
since his coming to office in 2004.[33]
Ukraine also has a close relationship with
the United States. US President George W.
Bush and both nominees for President of the
United States in the 2008 election, U.S. sen-
ator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John
McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine’s mem-
bership of NATO.[34][35][36] Russian reactions
are negative.[37] At a Nato summit
in
Bucharest
in April 2008 President Bush
Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko
meeting with Bush on April 1, 2008. Ty-
moshenko and Yushchenko both led the U.S.-
applauded Orange Revolution.[29]
pressed NATO to ignore Russia’s objections
and back membership for Ukraine and Geor-
gia.[38] Ukraine is currently the only non-
NATO member supporting every NATO mis-
sion.[39] President Bush noted that the Pres-
ident of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko was the
first foreign leader he called after his inaug-
ural address.[40]
The UN Security Council remains divided
on the question of Kosovo declaration of inde-
pendence. Kosovo declared its independence
on February 17, 2008, which Serbia opposes.
Of the five members with veto power, USA,
UK, and France recognized the declaration of
independence, and China has expressed con-
cern, while Russia considers it illegal. "In its
declaration of independence, Kosovo commit-
ted itself to the highest standards of demo-
cracy, including freedom and tolerance and
justice for citizens of all ethnic backgrounds,"
Bush said on February 19, 2008.[41][42]
Canada-United States relations
The bilateral relationship between Canada
and
the United States
is of
extreme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
8
importance
to
both
countries.
About
75%-85% of Canadian trade is with the Un-
ited States, and Canada is the United States’
largest trading partner. While there are dis-
puted issues between the two nations, rela-
tions are close and the two countries fam-
ously share the "world’s longest undefended
border."
Canada was a close ally of the United
States in both World Wars (though in both
cases Canadian involvement preceded US in-
volvement by several years), the Korean War,
and the Cold War. Canada was an original
member of NATO and the two countries’ air
defences are fused in NORAD.
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico is a semi-autonomous territory of
the United States. Puerto Ricans are subject
to laws passed by the United States Congress
without their consent and they are excluded
from elections to Congress and President (al-
though, as U.S. citizens, they are free to
move to any of the 50 states and cast votes in
elections there). According to the U.S. Pres-
ident’s Task Force Report on the Political
Status of Puerto Rico,[43] (which was enabled
by executive order from President Clinton in
2000 and was expressly endorsed by the Ge-
orge W. Bush Administration), Congress has
"Power to dispose of and make all needful
Rules and Regulations respecting the Territ-
ory or other Property belonging to the United
States".[44]
The Report by the President’s task force
on Puerto Rico’s Status states that Puerto
Ricans are U.S. citizens. There is an elected
local government for internal administration
in which the Governor of Puerto Rico is elec-
ted every four years as the Head of Govern-
ment. The President of the United States is
regarded as the Head of State. Also a Resid-
ent Commissioner is elected to represent the
people of Puerto Rico before the United
States Congress. Puerto Rico is not a U.S.
state but this has allowed Congress to ex-
empt the Puerto Rican people from most fed-
eral income tax laws and to provide them
with other tax preferences. There have been
four plebiscites, all of which found support
for the current Commonwealth status. Almost
as many voters have favored statehood. Only
2.54%
voted
for
independence
in
1998.[43][45]
Raw materials need
Persian Gulf
Further information: Energy policy of the Un-
ited States and Petroleum politics
An oil power plant in Iraq, which has world’s
second largest proven oil reserves.[46]
The U.S. currently produces about 40% of
the oil that it consumes; its imports have ex-
ceeded domestic production since the early
1990s. Since the U.S.’s oil consumption con-
tinues to rise, and its oil production contin-
ues to fall, this ratio may continue to de-
cline.[47] President George W. Bush has iden-
tified dependence on imported oil as an ur-
gent "national security concern".[48]
Two-thirds of the world’s proven oil re-
serves are estimated to be found in the Per-
sian Gulf.[49][50] Despite its distance, the Per-
sian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of
national interest to the United States during
World War II. Petroleum is of central import-
ance to modern armies, and the United
States—as the world’s leading oil producer at
that time—supplied most of the oil for the Al-
lied armies. Many US strategists were con-
cerned that the war would dangerously re-
duce the US oil supply, and so they sought to
establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a
kingdom with large oil reserves.[51]
The Persian Gulf region continued to be
regarded as an area of vital importance to
the United States during the Cold War. Three
Cold War United States Presidential doc-
trines—the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower
Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine—played
roles in the formulation of the Carter Doc-
trine, which stated that the United States
would use military force if necessary to de-
fend its "national interests" in the Persian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
9
Gulf region.[52] Carter’s successor, President
Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in Octo-
ber 1981 with what is sometimes called the
"Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine",
which proclaimed that the United States
would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia,
whose security was threatened after the out-
break of the Iran–Iraq War.[53] Some analysts
have argued that the implementation of the
Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary
also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003
Iraq War.[54][55][56][57]
Africa
USA are the main economic partner of Africa,
behind China and France. Africa being rich in
rare minerals (diamonds, uranium, cobalt),
woods, as well as oil and agricultural produc-
tions (exotic fruits, cacao, coffee).
Latin America
In the Cold War era the U.S. establishment
feared socialism and in some cases over-
threw or undermined democratically elected
governments perceived at the time as becom-
ing
left-wing or unfriendly
to U.S.
in-
terests.[58] Examples
include
the 1954
Guatemalan coup d’état, the 1973 Chilean
coup d’état and the support of the Nicara-
guan Contras. The ’70s and ’80s saw a shift
of power towards corporations, and a polariz-
ation of the political election systems of many
of the Latin American nations. Recently
several left-wing parties have gained power
through elections and have not been at-
tacked. In particular Venezuela has been crit-
ical of the U.S.. Nicaragua, Bolivia, and
Ecuador currently have governments some-
times seen as aligned with Venezuela. Left-
wing governments in nations such as Brazil,
Argentina, and Chile are more moderate.
Governments in Peru and Colombia have
closer relations with the U.S..
U.S. promotion of its version of democracy
was emphasized by Jimmy Carter. Particu-
larly in his first term, Ronald Reagan por-
trayed his policies in Central America as part
of a struggle against Communism (see Sal-
vadoran Civil War and Contras) and suppor-
ted several brutal dictatorships.[59] After the
Soviet collapse, both President George H. W.
Bush and Bill Clinton supported a version of
democracy development
in
some coun-
tries.[59] According to some theorists there is
at least a superficial correlation between
periods of democracy development and U.S.
policy towards democracy in Latin Amer-
ica.[59] Also earlier periods of U.S. demo-
cracy support occurred when democracies
become more common. Such periods oc-
curred during the 1920s, 1945-48, and
1958-63.[59]
Foreign aid
Foreign assistance is a core component of
the State Department’s international affairs
budget and is considered an essential instru-
ment of U.S. foreign policy. There are four
major categories of non-military foreign as-
sistance: bilateral development aid, economic
assistance supporting U.S. political and se-
curity goals, humanitarian aid, and multilat-
eral economic contributions (eg., contribu-
tions to the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund). [60]
In absolute dollar terms, the United States
is the largest international aid donor ($22.7
billion in 2006), but as a percent of gross na-
tional income, its contribution is only 0.2%,
proportionally much smaller than than contri-
butions of countries such as Sweden (1.04%
and the United Kingdom (0.52%). The U.S.
Agency
for
International
Development
(USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral eco-
nomic assistance; the Treasury Department
handles most multilateral aid.
Military
Military aid
The U.S. provides military aid through many
different channels. Counting the items that
appear in the budget as ’Foreign Military Fin-
ancing’ and ’Plan Colombia’, the U.S. spent
approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in
2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3
billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to
Colombia.
As of 2004, according to Fox News, the
U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130
different countries.[61]
Missile defense
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a
proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on
March 23, 1983[62] to use ground and space-
based systems to protect the United States
from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
10
Presidents Bush and Putin at the 33rd G8
summit, June 2007.
missiles,[63]
later dubbed "Star Wars".[64]
The initiative focused on strategic defense
rather than the prior strategic offense doc-
trine of mutual assured destruction (MAD).
Though it was never fully developed or de-
ployed, the research and technologies of SDI
paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile
systems of today.[65]
In February 2007, the U.S. started formal
negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic
concerning construction of missile shield in-
stallations in those countries for a Ground-
Based Midcourse Defense system[66] (in April
2007 57% of Poles opposed the plan).[67] Ac-
cording to press reports the government of
the Czech Republic agreed (while 67%
Czechs disagree)[68] to host a missile defense
radar on its territory while a base of missile
interceptors is supposed to be built in Po-
land.[69][70]
Russia threatened to place short-range
nuclear missiles on the Russia’s border with
NATO if the United States refuses to abandon
plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a
radar in Poland and the Czech Repub-
lic.[71][72] In April 2007, Putin warned of a
new Cold War if the Americans deployed the
shield in Central Europe.[73] Putin also said
that Russia is prepared to abandon its obliga-
tions under a Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United
States.[74]
On August 14, 2008, The United States
and Poland announced a deal to implement
the missile defense system in Polish territory,
with a tracking system placed in the Czech
Republic.[75] "The fact that this was signed in
a period of very difficult crisis in the relations
between Russia and the United States over
the situation in Georgia shows that, of
course, the missile defense system will be de-
ployed not against Iran but against the stra-
tegic potential of Russia," Dmitry Rogozin,
Russia’s NATO envoy, said.[66][76]
Illicit drugs
United States foreign policy is influenced by
the efforts of the U.S. government to halt im-
ports of
illicit drugs,
including cocaine,
heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
This is especially true in Latin America, a fo-
cus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts
date back to at least 1880, when the U.S. and
China completed an agreement which prohib-
ited the shipment of opium between the two
countries.
Over a century later, the Foreign Rela-
tions Authorization Act requires the Presid-
ent to identify the major drug transit or ma-
jor
illicit
drug-producing
countries.
In
September 2005 [7], the following countries
were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil,
Burma,
Colombia,
Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica,
Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these,
Burma and Venezuela are countries that the
U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to
their obligations under international coun-
ternarcotics agreements during the previous
twelve months. Notably absent from the 2005
list were Afghanistan, the People’s Republic
of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omit-
ted in spite of evidence that criminal groups
there are increasingly involved in the produc-
tion of MDMA destined for the United States
and that large-scale cross-border trafficking
of Canadian-grown marijuana continues. The
U.S. believes that The Netherlands are suc-
cessfully countering the production and flow
of MDMA to the U.S.
Afghanistan is, as of March, 2008, the
greatest illicit (in Western World standards)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
11
President George W. Bush and President
Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.[77]
opium producer in the world, before Burma
(Myanmar), part of the so-called "Golden
Crescent". As much as one-third of Afgh-
anistan’s GDP comes from growing poppy
and illicit drugs including opium and its two
derivatives, morphine and heroin, as well as
hashish production.[78] Opium production in
Afghanistan has soared to a new record in
2007, with an increase on last year of more
than a third, the United Nations has said.[79]
Some 3.3 million Afghans are now involved in
producing opium.[80]
Former U.S. State Department Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforce-
ment Affairs Thomas Schweich, in a New
York Times article dated July 27, 2007, as-
serts that opium production is protected by
the government of Hamid Karzai as well as
by the Taliban, as all parties to political con-
flict in Afghanistan as well as criminals bene-
fit from opium production, and, in Schweich’s
opinion, the U.S. military turns a blind eye to
opium production as not being central to its
anti-terrorism mission.[81][82]
The Prime Minister for Kosovo, Hashim
Thaçi, is alleged to have extensive criminal
links. During the period of time when Thaçi
was head of the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA), it was reported by the Washington
Times to be financing its activities by traffick-
ing heroin
and cocaine
into western
Europe.[83][84] The Bush administration has
consistently supported Kosovo independence
from Serbia.[85]
History of exporting
democracy through milit-
ary intervention
Further information: List of United States
military history events, Overseas interven-
tions of the United States, Overseas expan-
sion of the United States, Covert U.S. regime
change actions, and United States and state
terrorism
Further information: Democratic peace the-
ory and Iran Freedom and Support Act
In the history of the United States, presidents
have often used democracy as a justification
for military intervention abroad,[86][87] al-
though on a number of other occasions the
U.S. overthrew democratically elected gov-
ernments (See Operation Ajax, Operation
PBSUCCESS, Covert U.S. Regime Change
Actions). A number of studies have been de-
voted to the historical success rate of the
U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Most
studies of American intervention have been
pessimistic about the history of the United
States exporting democracy.[88] Until re-
cently, scholars have generally agreed with
international relations professor Abraham
Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export demo-
cracy have been "negligible, often counter-
productive, and only occasionally posit-
ive."[89][90]
But some studies, such as a study by
Tures find U.S. intervention has had mixed
results,[88] and another by Hermann and
Kegley has found that military interventions
have improved democracy in other coun-
tries.[91]
Opinion that U.S. intervention
does not export democracy
Professor Paul W. Drake writes that the Un-
ited States first attempted to export demo-
cracy in Latin America through intervention
from 1912 to 1932. Drake argues that this
was contradictory because international law
defines intervention as "dictatorial interfer-
ence in the affairs of another state for the
purpose of altering the condition of things."
Democracy failed because democracy needs
to develop out of internal conditions, and
American leaders usually defined democracy
as elections only. Further the United States
Department of State disapproved of any re-
bellion of any kind, which were often
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
12
incorrectly
labeled
"revolutions",
even
against dictatorships.[92] As historian Walter
LaFeber states, "The world’s leading revolu-
tionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth
century became the leading protector of the
status quo in the twentieth century."[93]
Mesquita and Downs evaluate the period
between 1945 to 2004. They state that the
U.S. has intervened in 35 countries, and only
in one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged,
stable
democracy"
develop within
10
years.[94] Samia Amin Pei argues that nation
building in developed countries usually be-
gins to unravel four to six years after Americ-
an intervention ends. Pei, quoting Polity, (a
database on democracy in the world), agrees
with Mesquita and Downs that most coun-
tries where the U.S. intervenes never become
a democracies or become more authoritarian
after 10 years.[95]
Professor Joshua Muravchik argues that
U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power
democratization after World War II, but
America’s failure to build democracy in the
third world "prove... that U.S. military occu-
pation is not a sufficient condition to make a
country democratic."[96][97] The success of
democracy in former Axis countries maybe
because of these countries per-capita income.
Steven Krasner of the CDDRL states that a
high per capita income may help build a
democracy, because no democratic country
with a per-capita income which is above
$6,000 has ever become an autocracy.[92]
Opinion that U.S. intervention
has mixed results
Tures examines 228 cases of American inter-
vention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom
House data. A plurality of interventions, 96,
caused no change in the country’s demo-
cracy. In 69 instances the country became
less democratic after the intervention. In the
remaining 63 cases, a country became more
democratic.[88]
Opinion that U.S. intervention
effectively exports democracy
Hermann and Kegley find that American mil-
itary interventions which are designed to pro-
tect or promote democracy increase freedom
in those countries.[91] Penceny argues that
the democracies created after military inter-
vention are still closer to an autocracy than a
democracy, quoting Przeworski "while some
democracies are more democratic than oth-
ers, unless offices are contested, no regime
should be considered democratic."[98] There-
fore, Penceny concludes, it is difficult to
know from the Hermann and Kegley study
whether U.S. intervention has only produced
less repressive autocratic governments or
genuine democracies.[99]
Penceny states that the United States has
attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93
twentieth-century military interventions.[100]
Penceny argues that proliberal policies after
military intervention have a positive impact
on democracy.[101]
Criticisms
Critics of U.S. foreign policy suggest that
U.S. foreign policy rhetoric contradicts some
of the U.S. government’s actions abroad. [8]
[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Some of these criticisms include:
• The long list of U.S. military involvements
that stand in contrast to the rhetoric of
promoting peace and respect for the
sovereignty of nations.
• The many former and current
dictatorships that receive or have received
U.S. financial or military support,
especially in Latin America, Southeast
Asia, and the Middle East, despite the U.S.
claiming to support democracy and
democratic principles.
• The U.S. import tariffs (to protect local
industries from global competition) on
foreign goods like wood[102] and
agricultural products, in contrast to
stating support for free trade.
• Claims of generosity, in contrast to low
spendings on foreign developmental aid
(measured as percentage of GDP) when
compared to other western countries
(taking into consideration only
government foreign aid, and not donations
through private charities)
• Lack of support for environmental
treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol.
• Frequent mention of concern for human
rights, despite refusing to ratify the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, the
widespread support of dictatorial
governments whose military the U.S. may
have formerly trained on methods of
torture (notably in the infamous former
School of the Americas), and support for
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
13
paramilitary organizations, for example
the Contras in Nicaragua.[103][104]
• American exceptionalism - the sense that
America is qualitatively different from
other countries and the pertaining
conviction that America cannot be judged
by the same standard as other countries.
For instance, that America is retaining its
own nuclear weapons while trying to
prevent nuclear proliferation is often seen
as hypocritical.
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Ar-
royo with George W. Bush inspects the
Malacanang Palace Honor Guards during the
latter’s 8-hour State Visit to the Philippines
in October 2003
• A general opposition to independent
nationalism - countries focused primarily
on domestic concerns, such as social
reform.[105]
Criticisms of the effectiveness of U.S. foreign
policy include:
• An inability to combine strategic military
objectives and diplomatic and political
objectives. In short, this means an
ineffective follow-up to military operations
by being unable or unwanting to
determine diplomatic and political goals,
resulting in unfavorable situations to
either the United States or friendly
involved parties. Examples include: the
absence of any treaties or objectives for
post-war Germany and Europe during the
Second World War, resulting in the Soviet
occupation of most of Eastern Europe; the
absence of diplomatic/political objectives
to follow-up on military victory in the
Korean War resulting in an ongoing
preservation of the 1953 status-quo;
inadequately defined objectives for the
Vietnam War, resulting in a Communist
take-over of the region; and most recently
the failure to develop plans to rebuild and
restabilize Iraq after the defeat of Saddam
Hussein, leading to the ongoing
destabilization of the surrounding region
and huge expenses required by the United
States itself.[106]
Charges of negative influence have been
levied even in countries traditionally con-
sidered allies of the United States.[107]
Further, some opinions have stated that
under the Nuremberg Principles, the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq, which was not a war to de-
fend against an imminent threat, but rather a
war of aggression, constitutes the supreme
international crime from which all other war
crimes follow.[108] For example, Benjamin
Ferencz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war
crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush
should be tried for war crimes along with
Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive"
wars—Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait
and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.[109]
Similarly, under the United Nations Charter,
ratified by the U.S. and therefore binding on
it, all UN member states including the U.S.
are prohibited from using force against fel-
low member states (Iraq is a member of the
UN) except to defend against an imminent at-
tack or pursuant to explicit UN Security
Council authorization (UN Charter; interna-
tional law). "There was no authorization from
the UN Security Council... and that made it a
crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle,
professor of international law, who also said
the U.S. Army’s field manual required such
authorization for an offensive war.[110] A fre-
quent rebuttal to this criticism is the asser-
tion that the United Nations gave the United
States and its coalition partners the legal au-
thority to remove Saddam Hussein from
power in UN Security Council Resolution
1441, providing that Iraq would "face serious
consequences as a result of its continued vi-
olations of its obligations."
Other realist critics, such as George F.
Kennan, have argued that the responsibility
of the United States is only to protect the
rights of its own citizens, and that therefore
Washington should deal with other govern-
ments on that basis alone. Realists charge
that a claimed heavy emphasis on democrat-
ization or nation-building abroad was one of
the major tenets of President Woodrow
Wilson’s diplomatic philosophy (despite not
being mentioned
in Wilson’s Fourteen
Points),[112] and the failure of the League of
Nations
to
enforce
the will
of
the
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
14
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with George
W. Bush at the Prairie Chapel Ranch.[111]
international community in the cases of Nazi
Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in
the 1930s, as well as the inherent weakness
of the new states created at the Paris Peace
Conference,
demonstrated
the
folly
of
Wilson’s idealism. However, an important ex-
planation for the weakness of the League of
Nations was the refusal of the U.S. to join the
organization, driven primarily by strong re-
newed isolationist sentiment at home.
Noam Chomsky writes
that Thomas
Carothers, who was in Reagan’s State De-
partment in the 1980s and who was involved
with the Democracy Enhancement programs
in Latin America primarily has concluded
that the efforts were a failure, and in fact a
systematic failure. "Where U.S. influence was
the least there you found the most progress
towards democracy.... But where the U.S.
had influence, it sought only limited, top
down forms of democracy that did not risk
upsetting the traditional structures of power
with which the United States had long been
allied."[113]
There is also criticism of alleged human
rights abuse, the most important recent ex-
amples of which are the multiple reports of
alleged prisoner abuse and torture at U.S.-
run detention camps in Guantánamo Bay (at
"Camp X-ray") (in Cuba), Abu Ghraib (Iraq),
secret CIA prisons (eastern Europe), and oth-
er places voiced by, e.g., the Council of
Europe and Amnesty International. Amnesty
International in its Amnesty International Re-
port 2005 [14] says that: "the detention facil-
ity at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag
of our times" [15]. This Amnesty report also
claimed that there was a use of double stand-
ards
in the U.S. government:
the U.S.
president "has repeatedly asserted that the
United States was founded upon and is dedic-
ated to the cause of human dignity". (Theme
of his speech to the UN General Assembly in
September 2004). But some memorandums
emerged after the Abu Ghraib scandal "sug-
gested that the administration was discuss-
ing ways in which its agents could avoid the
international ban on torture and cruel, inhu-
man or Degrading Treatment" [16]. Govern-
ment responses to these criticisms include
that Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and the
network of
secret Central
Intelligence
Agency jails
in Eastern Europe and the
Middle East were largely isolated incidents
and not reflective of general U.S. conduct,
and at the same time maintain that coerced
interrogation in Guantánamo and Europe is
necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.
U.S. generosity is not demonstrated in the
relatively low governmental spendings on for-
eign developmental aid (measured as per-
centage of Gross domestic product (GDP)
when compared to other western countries.
In fact the U.S. ranks 21 of 22 Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) countries, assigning just 0.17% of
GDP to overseas aid (compared with the most
generous, Sweden, which gives 1.03%).[114]
This is despite a promise made by OECD
countries to raise overseas aid to 0.7% of
GDP first made over 35 years ago and most
recently reiterated at the 2002 global Finan-
cing for Development conference in Monter-
rey, Mexico.[115] U.S. overseas aid was in
fact
reduced by 15.8% from 2005 to
2006.[116]
Official aid statistics do not include charit-
able organizations. Through the many tax
privileges that the United States grants to its
nonprofit organizations, the government im-
plicitly foots some portion of the bill anytime
these organizations send money abroad for
development purposes. [17] However, though
many Americans believe that the U.S. is the
only nation which offers tax relief for charit-
able giving, nearly all of the 22 OECD coun-
tries also offer such incentives, in fact only
Austria, Finland and Sweden do not.[117] 79
percent of total foreign aid came from private
foundations, corporations, voluntary organiz-
ations, universities, religious organizations
and individuals, according to the annual In-
dex of Global Philanthropy. According to the
index the United States is the top donor in
absolute amounts and the seventh of 22 in
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
15
terms of GNI percentage. [18] However, al-
most half the ’aid’ measured by the Global
Philanthropy Index is made up of remittances
by foreign nationals in the United States and
it is highly questionable whether these can
be included as US giving.[118] Another index
which ranks countries according to quality-
adjusted aid and charitable giving, including
private donations but not remittances, ranks
the US 20 of 21 in terms of percentage of
GDP which is donated to overseas aid.[119]
Support
U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a
meeting with Indian and American business
leaders in New Delhi to discuss bilateral
trade. A survey held in 2005 revealed that In-
dia, the world’s most populous democracy,
was also one of the most pro-American coun-
tries in the world.[120]
Regarding support for various dictatorships,
especially during the Cold War, a response is
that they were seen as necessary evil, with
the alternatives even worse Communist or
fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz
challenges the notion that this violation of
core American values actually served U.S. in-
terests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary
reforms and destroyed the political center,
while the ’realist’ policy of coddling dictators
brought a backlash among foreign popula-
tions with long memories.[121][122]
Halperin et al. writes that there is a
widely held view that poor countries need to
delay democracy until they develop. The ar-
gument went —as presented in the writings
of Samuel Huntington and Seymour Martin
Lipset— that if a poor country became demo-
cratic, because of the pressures in a demo-
cracy to respond to the interests of the
people, they would borrow too much, they
would spend the money in ways that did not
advance development. These poor decisions
would mean that development would not oc-
cur; and because people would then be disap-
pointed, they would return to a dictatorship.
Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself
a benign dictator — it was never quite ex-
plained how you would make sure you had a
dictator that spent the money to develop the
country rather than ship it off to a Swiss
bank account—wait until that produces de-
velopment, which produces a middle class,
and then, inevitably, the middle class will de-
mand freedom, and you will have a democrat-
ic government. The study argues that this is
wrong. Poor democracies perform better, in-
cluding also on economic growth if excluding
East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[123]
Many of the U.S.’s former enemies have
democratized, and many have become U.S.
allies. The Philippines (1946), South Korea
(1948), West Germany (1949), Japan (1952),
Austria (1955),
the Panama Canal Zone
(1979), the Federated States of Micronesia
(1986), the Marshall Islands (1986), and
Palau (1994) are examples of former posses-
sions that have gained independence. Many
nations in Eastern Europe have joined NATO.
(Note, statements regarding degree of demo-
cracy are based on the classification at these
times in the Polity data series).
Many democracies have voluntary military
alliances with United States. See NATO,
ANZUS, Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and
Security between the United States and
Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with South
Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those na-
tions with military alliances with the U.S. can
spend less on the military since they can
count on U.S. protection. This may give a
false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful
than those nations. [19] [20]
Research on the democratic peace theory
has generally found that democracies, includ-
ing the United States, have not made war on
one another. There have been U.S. support
for coups against some democracies, but for
example Spencer R. Weart argues that part
of the explanation was the perception, cor-
rect or not, that these states were turning in-
to Communist dictatorships. Also important
was the role of rarely transparent United
States government agencies, who sometimes
mislead or did not fully implement the de-
cisions of elected civilian leaders.[124]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
16
Empirical studies (see democide) have
found that democracies, including the United
States, have killed much fewer civilians than
dictatorships.[125][126] Media may be biased
against the U.S. regarding reporting human
rights violations. Studies have found that
New York Times coverage of worldwide hu-
man rights violations predominantly focuses
on the human rights violations in nations
where there is clear U.S. involvement, while
having relatively little coverage of the human
rights violations in other nations.[127][128]
For example, the bloodiest war in recent
time, involving eight nations and killing mil-
lions of civilians, was the Second Congo War,
which was almost completely ignored by the
media. Finally, those nations with military al-
liances with the U.S. can spend less on the
military and have a less active foreign policy
since they can count on U.S. protection. This
may give a false impression that the U.S. is
less peaceful than those nations.[129][130]
Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is in-
correctly blamed for all the human rights vi-
olations in nations they have supported. He
writes that
it
is generally agreed that
Guatemala was the worst of the US-backed
regimes during the Cold War. However, the
U.S. cannot credibly be blamed for all the
200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan
Civil War.[122] The U.S. Intelligence Over-
sight Board writes that military aid was cut
for long periods because of such violations,
that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and
that efforts were made to improve the con-
duct of the security services.[131]
Today the U.S. states that democratic na-
tions best support U.S. national interests. Ac-
cording to
the U.S. State Department,
"Democracy is the one national interest that
helps to secure all the others. Democratically
governed nations are more likely to secure
the peace, deter aggression, expand open
markets, promote economic development,
protect American citizens, combat interna-
tional terrorism and crime, uphold human
and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises
and refugee flows, improve the global envir-
onment, and protect human health." [21] Ac-
cording to former U.S. President Bill Clinton,
"Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our
security and to build a durable peace is to
support the advance of democracy else-
where. Democracies don’t attack each oth-
er."[132] In one view mentioned by the U.S.
State Department, democracy is also good for
business. Countries that embrace political re-
forms are also more likely to pursue econom-
ic reforms that improve the productivity of
businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s,
under President Ronald Reagan, there has
been an increase in levels of foreign direct in-
vestment going to emerging market democra-
cies relative to countries that have not under-
taken political reforms. [22]
The United States officially maintains that
it supports democracy and human rights
through several tools [23] Examples of these
tools are as follows:
• A published yearly report by the State
Department entitled "Supporting Human
Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record"
in compliance with a 2002 law (enacted
and signed by President George W. Bush,
which requires the Department to report
on actions taken by the U.S. Government
to encourage respect for human rights.
[24]
• A yearly published "Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices." [25]
• In 2006 (under President George W.
Bush), the United States created a
"Human Rights Defenders Fund" and
"Freedom Awards." [26]
• The "Human Rights and Democracy
Achievement Award" recognizes the
exceptional achievement of officers of
foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.
[27]
• The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series",
created in 2006, are informal discussions
between newly-confirmed U.S.
Ambassadors and human rights and
democracy non-governmental
organizations. [28]
• The National Endowment for Democracy,
a private non-profit created by Congress
in 1983 (and signed into law by President
Ronald Reagan which is mostly funded by
the U.S. Government and gives cash
grants to strengthen democratic
institutions around the world
See also
Constitutional and
International Law
• Advice and consent
• Afroyim v. Rusk
• Garcia-Mir v.
Meese
Military
• 2003 invasion
of Iraq
• American
Interventions in
the Middle East
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
17
• List of United
States treaties
• Missouri v. Holland
• Paquete Habana
• Reid v. Covert
• Schneider v. Rusk
• Treaty Clause
Diplomacy
• Council on Foreign
Relations
• Cowboy diplomacy
• Diplomatic missions
of the United States
• George
Washington’s
Farewell Address
• Timeline of United
States diplomatic
history
• United States and
the United Nations
• United States
Agency for
International
Development
• United States,
Chanceries of
Foreign
Governments
Intelligence
• Allegations of CIA
assistance to
Osama bin Laden
• Covert U.S. regime
change actions
• Extraordinary
rendition by the
United States
• Special Activities
Division
• Torture and the
United States
• Bulgarian-
American Joint
Military
Facilities
• Foreign Military
Sales
• NATO
• United States
Foreign Military
Financing
• United States
military aid
• Unlawful
combatant
• War crimes
committed by
the United
States
Policy and
Doctrine
• American
Empire
• American
exceptionalism
• Bush Doctrine
• Carter Doctrine
• China
Containment
Policy
• Containment
• Détente
• Human rights in
the United
States
• Human Rights
Record of the
United States
• Monroe
Doctrine
• Nixon Doctrine
• Powell Doctrine
• Reagan
Doctrine
• Special
relationship
• United States
and state
terrorism
References
[1] U.S. Dept of State - Foreign Policy
Agenda
[2] Committee on Foreign Affairs: U.S.
House of Representatives
[3] http://www.commondreams.org/
headlines02/0204-01.htm
[4] Bush to Russia: ’Bullying and
intimidation are not acceptable’, Los
Angeles Times
[5] U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2,
http://www.archives.gov/national-
archives-experience/charters/
constitution.html
[6] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8,
http://www.archives.gov/national-
archives-experience/charters/
constitution.html
[7] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7,
http://www.archives.gov/national-
archives-experience/charters/
constitution.html
[8] Oren, Michael B. (2005-11-03), "The
Middle East and the Making of the
United States, 1776 to 1815",
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/
michaelOren.html, retrieved on
2007-02-18.
[9] John M. Gates, “War-Related Deaths in
the Philippines”, Pacific Historical
Review , v. 53, No. 3 (August, 1984),
367-378.
[10]U.S. past haunts Iraq war plans: reports
detail U.S. weapons, intelligence aid to
Saddam Hussein in ’80s - World
[11] [1]
[12] [www.firstworldwar.com/source/
uspeacetreaty_austria.htm]
[13] [www.firstworldwar.com/source/
uspeacetreaty_hungary.htm]
[14]Bin Laden comes home to roost,
MSNBC.com
[15]1992 Wolfowitz U.S. Strategy Plan
Document
[16]Opinions of Iraq War Show Little
Movement
[17] [2]
[18]Michael Abramowitz, "Many Versions of
’Bush Doctrine’: Palin’s Confusion in
Interview Understandable, Experts Say"
Washington Post September 13, 2008;
Page A01 online
[19]Critics Say Bush Doctrine Might Provoke
1st Strike
[20]Neta C. Crawford, Just War Theory and
the U.S. Counterterror War
[21]Article on Bhutan
[22] "Transnational Issues". April 20, 2006.
CIA World factbook. Accessed April 30,
2006.
[23]Bush: ’Israel Has Right to Defend Itself’
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
18
[24]CRS Report for Congress, Israel:
Background and Relations with the
United States
[25]LA Times article on Indo-US Deal
[26]Bush Warns Russia: Breakaway South
Ossetia, Abkhazia Are Part of Georgia,
VOA News
[27]Obama pledges partnership with India,
MSN India - News
[28]^ manir.info/
article.php3?id_article=3651 OTAN - Le
grand jeu des bases militaires en terre
européenne, Manlio Dilucci, French
translation published on May 9, 2006 in
Le Grand Soir newspaper of an article
originally published in Il Manifesto on
April 30, 2006
[29]Ukraine’s Orange Revolution and U.S.
Policy
[30]Georgia to double troops in Iraq BBC
[31] "Peace bid as Ossetia crisis rages", BBC,
2008-08-09, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
world/europe/7551595.stm, retrieved on
2008-08-09.
[32] "U.S. takes Georgian troops home from
Iraq", Air Force Times, 2008-08-11,
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/
2008/08/
airforce_georgian_airlift_081108w/,
retrieved on 2008-08-12.
[33]Tear gas used on Georgia protest, BBC
News, 7 November 2007
[34]BBC NEWS | Europe | Bush to back
Ukraine’s Nato hopes
[35]Obama Statement on Ukraine’s
Commitment to Join NATO | U.S. Senator
Barack Obama
[36]McCain Backs Tougher Line Against
Russia - March 27, 2008 - The New York
Sun
[37]Nato allies divided over Ukraine and
Georgia, guardian.co.uk, December 2,
2008
[38]Nato summit: George Bush backs
Ukraine and Georgia for Nato, The
Times, April 2, 2008
[39]Bush backs Ukraine on Nato bid, BBC
News, April 1, 2008
[40]The Orange Revolution: One Year Later,
Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary for
Democracy and Global Affairs, December
5, 2005
[41]Bush Hails Kosovo Independence, U.S.
Department of State’s Bureau of
International Information Programs
[42]Bush insists Kosovo must be independent
and receives hero’s welcome in Albania,
The Guardian
[43]^ "Appendix A Presidential Documents"
(PDF), December 2005,
http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/
Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf, retrieved
on 2007-10-01.
[44]Keith Bea (May 25, 2005), "Political
Status of Puerto Rico: Background,
Options, and Issues in the 109th
Congress" (PDF), Congressional
Research Service, http://www.fas.org/
sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf, retrieved on
2007-10-01.
[45] "Report by the President’s task force on
Puerto Rico’s Status" (PDF), December
2007, http://www.primerahora.com/
XStatic/primerahora/docs/espanol/
whitehousestatusreport.pdf, retrieved on
2007-12-24.
[46] Iraq: Oil and Economy
[47]Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports
Top 15 Countries
[48]Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China
Falls as Oil Prices Rise, Bloomberg.com
[49]Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia,
New York Times
[50]The End of Cheap Oil, National
Geographic
[51]Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil
Wealth
[52]The war is about oil but it’s not that
simple, msnbc.com
[53]The United States Navy and the Persian
Gulf
[54]What if the Chinese were to apply the
Carter Doctrine?, Haaretz - Israel News
[55]Selling the Carter Doctrine, TIME
[56]Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was
really for oil, Times Online
[57]Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq,
The Guardian
[58] "Latin America’s Left Turn",
www.foreignaffairs.org,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
20060501faessay85302-p0/jorge-g-
castaneda/latin-america-s-left-turn.html,
retrieved on 23 March 2008.
[59]^ http://www.march.es/ceacs/
publicaciones/working/archivos/
1994_61.pdf
[60]Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of
U.S. Programs and Policy
[61]Fox News, 1st November, 2004 Analysts
Ponder U.S. Basing in Iraq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
19
[62]Federation of American Scientists.
Missile Defense Milestones. Accessed
March 10, 2006.
[63] Johann Hari: Obama’s chance to end the
fantasy that is Star Wars, The
Independent, November 13, 2008
[64]Historical Documents: Reagan’s ’Star
Wars’ speech, CNN Cold War
[65] "How Missile Defense Systems Will
Work"
[66]^ Missile defense backers now cite
Russia threat
[67]U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense,
washingtonpost.com
[68]Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base
in Czech Republic[3]
[69]Europe diary: Missile defence, BBC
News
[70]Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in
Europe
[71]Russia piles pressure on EU over missile
shield, Telegraph
[72]China, Russia sign nuclear deal,
condemn US missile defense plans,
International Herald Tribune
[73]Russia threatening new cold war over
missile defence, The Guardian
[74]U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense,
USATODAY.com
[75]Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal, The
New York Times, August 15, 2008
[76]Russia angry over U.S. missile shield, Al
Jazeera English, August 15, 2008
[77]Karzai Protects Drug Lords, Former U.S.
Official Says, CBS News
[78] "Afghanistan", The World Factbook,
Central Intelligence Agency, December
13, 2007, https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/
af.html#People.
[79]Afghan opium production at record high
[80]UN horrified by surge in opium trade in
Helmand
[81] "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?" by
Thomas Schweich, July 27, 2008, New
York Times
[82] "Combating Synthetic Drugs, A Global
Challenge: U.S. and International
Responses", by Thomas A. Schweich,
Joseph T. Rannazzisi, James O’Gara, U.S.
State Department
[83] "KLA finances fight with heroin sales
Terror group is linked to crime network";
Jerry Seper. Washington Times.
Washington, D.C.: May 3, 1999. pg. A.1
[84]KLA Linked To Enormous Heroin Trade /
Police suspect drugs helped finance
revolt, The San Francisco Chronicle
[85]Divisions Harden over Kosovo
Independence
[86]Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de; George W.
Downs (Spring 2004), "Why Gun-Barrel
Democracy Doesn’t Work", Hoover
Digest 2, http://www.hooverdigest.org/
042/bdm.html. Also see this page.
[87]Meernik, James (1996), "United States
Military Intervention and the Promotion
of Democracy", Journal of Peace
Research 33 (4): 391–402, doi:10.1177/
0022343396033004002. p. 391
[88]^ Tures, John A., "Operation Exporting
Freedom: The Quest for Democratization
via United States Military Operations"
(PDF), Whitehead School of Diplomacy
and International Relations,
http://diplomacy.shu.edu/journal/new/
pdf/VolVINo1/09_Tures.pdf. PDF file.
[89]Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United
States and Latin American Democracy:
Learning from History. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press. In Exporting
Democracy, Themes and Issues, edited
by Abraham Lowenthal p. 243-265.
[90]Penceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the
Point of Bayonets. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
ISBN 0-271-01883-6. p. 183
[91]^ Hermann, Margaret G.; Charles W.
Kegley, Jr. (1998), "The U.S. Use of
Military Intervention to Promote
Democracy: Evaluating the Record",
International Interactions 24 (2):
91–114, doi:10.1080/
03050629808434922.
[92]^ Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1,
1991). Exporting Democracy : The
United States and Latin America. The
Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN
0-8018-4132-1. p. 1, 4, 5.
[93]Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable
Revolutions: The United States in
Central America. W. W. Norton &
Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9.
[94]Factors included
[1] limits on executive power,
[2] clear rules for the transition of power,
[3] universal adult suffrage, and
[4] competitive elections.
• Pei, Samia Amin; Seth Garz (March 17
2004), "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-
Course", International Herald Tribune,
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
20
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/
publications/
index.cfm?fa=view&id=1479.
• Penceny, p. 186.
• Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting
Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny.
Washington, DC: American Enterprise
Institute Press. ISBN 0-8447-3734-8. p.
91-118.
• Przeworski, Adam; Michael M. Alvarez,
Jose Antonio Cheibub (1996), "What
Makes Democracy Endure" ( – Scholar
search), Journal of Democracy 7 (1): 39–55,
doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0016,
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/
access.cgi?uri=/journals/
journal_of_democracy/v007/
7.1przeworski.html.
• Penceny, p. 193
• Penceny, p. 2
• Review: Shifter, Michael (Winter 2001),
"Democracy at the Point of Bayonets",
Latin American Politics and Society 43:
150, doi:10.2307/3177036,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_qa4000/is_200101/ai_n8943833.
• "Canada attacks U.S. on wood tariffs",
BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/
4374502.stm, retrieved on 24 March
2008.
• Satter, Raphael (2007-05-24), "Report hits
U.S. on human rights", Associated Press
(published on The Boston Globe),
http://www.boston.com/news/world/
europe/articles/2007/05/24/
report_hits_us_on_human_rights/
?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News,
retrieved on 2007-05-29.
• "World Report 2002: United States",
Human Rights Watch, http://hrw.org/
wr2k2/us.html, retrieved on 2007-06-02.
• Chomsky, Noam (2006 -03-28), "The Israel
Lobby?", ZNet, http://www.zmag.org/znet/
viewArticle/4134, retrieved on
2009-01-13.
• Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Kissinger
sees the gap between military action and
political objectives as characteristic for
U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century
• Israel, Iran top ’negative list’By Nick
Childs, 6 March 2007
• Principles of International Law
Recognized in the Charter of the
Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of
the Tribunal, 1950. on the website of the
United Nations
• Glantz, Aaron (August 25 2006), "Bush
and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says
Nuremberg Prosecutor", OneWorld.net,
http://www.commondreams.org/
headlines06/0825-06.htm.
• Bernton, Hal (August 18 2006), "Iraq war
bashed at hearing for soldier who
wouldn’t go", The Seattle Times,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
localnews/2003207442_watada18m.html.
• Who Is the World’s Worst Dictator?
•
Fourteen Points Speech
• Chomsky, Noam. "21st Century:
Democracy or Absolutism" Chicago
(October 17, 1994). Retrieved on
2008-02-19.
• US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global
Issues
• UN Millennium Project © 2005 | Fast
Facts
• OECD Statistics
• U.S. and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global
Issues
• US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global
Issues
• US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global
Issues
• India: Pro-America, Pro-Bush
• The United States and Right-Wing
Dictatorships, 1965-1989. David F.
Schmitz. 2006.
• ^ a b Do the sums, then compare U.S. and
Communist crimes from the Cold War
Telegraph, 11/12/2005, Niall Ferguson
• Morton Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle,
Michael M. Weinstein, Joanne J. Myers
The Democracy Advantage: How
Democracies Promote Prosperity and
Peace March 17, 2005
• Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War.
Yale University Press. ISBN
0-300-07017-9. p. 221-224, 314.
• DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J.
Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction
Publishers, 1994. Online links: [4][5][6]
• No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?,
Barbara Harff, 2003.
• Caliendo, S.M.; Gibney, M.; Payne, A.
(1999), "All the News That’s Fit to Print?
New York Times Coverage of Human-
Rights Violations", The Harvard
International Journal of Press Politics 4:
48–69, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/
journals/
harvard_international_journal_of_press_politics/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
21
v004/4.4caliendo.html, retrieved on
2008-04-02.
• Caliendo, Stephen. and Gibney, Mark.
(2006), American Print Media Coverage of
Human Rights Violations,
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/
p152798_index.html?type=info, retrieved
on 2008-04-02.
• Give peace a rating May 31 2007 From
The Economist print edition
• Japan ranked as world’s 5th most peaceful
nation: report Japan Today, May 31 2007
• Report on the Guatemala Review
Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28,
1996.
• Clinton, Bill, "1994 State Of The Union
Address",
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/
politics/special/states/docs/sou94.htm,
retrieved on 2006-01-22.
External links
• “Hope and Memory”. 1801-2004 timeline
of 163 U.S. interventions. Adbusters.
• Timeline of U.S. diplomatic history
• USC U.S.-China Institute, "Election ’08
and the Challenge of China," web
documentary, October 2008.
• USC U.S.-China Institute collection of
speeches, government reports on U.S.-
China relations
• Chris Zambelis and Brandon Gentry,
"China Through Arab Eyes: American
Influence in the Middle East," Parameters,
Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1, Spring 2008, pp.
60–72. [29]
• "How the World Sees America", Amar C.
Bakshi, "Washington Post/Newsweek",
2007.
• Getting beyond the Bush Doctrine,
Edward A. Kolodziej, Center for Global
Studies, December, 2006.
• A site critical of U.S. foreign policy during
the last 60 years
• America’s Role in the World: Foreign
Policy Choices for the Next President
• U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy, a
Background Q&A by cfr.org, the website
of the Council on Foreign Relations
• U.S. State Dept. Documentary: Foreign
Relations of the United States
• Foreign Relations of the United States
1861-1960 (full text from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison Libraries)
• Introduction to U.S. foreign aid
• Foreign aid by country
• India as a New Global Power: An Action
Agenda for the United States"
• An analysis of the strained love-hate
relationship between U.S. and Pakistan by
Prof. Adil Najam of the Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy published in The
News International
• Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index
Tracking survey of American public
attitudes on foreign policy, conducted by
Public Agenda with Foreign Affairs
magazine.
• Speech by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice on U.S. Policy in East Asia at the
Heritage Foundation on October 25, 2006
• An interactive map of some examples of a
sampling of U.S. Foreign Policy
• America and Taiwan, 1943-2004
• Analysis of Congressional-Executive
Agreements (Article by Steve Charnovitz
from the American Journal of International
Law)
• Nixon’s Visit to China and how it Began a
New Sino-American Relationship
• A PDF file of the Congressional Research
Service report, Library of Congress,
Treaties and other International
Agreements: the Role of the United States
Senate
• National Endowment for Democracy
• The Washington Diplomat newspaper
Further reading
History of exporting democracy
• Barro, Robert J. (Spring 2002),
"Democracy in Afghanistan: Don’t Hold
Your Breath", Hoover Digest (2),
http://www.hooverdigest.org/022/
barro.html. *
• Barzilai, Gad. (Winter 2009), "Steps
Obama Should Take to Avoide a Wider
War in the Middle East", Seattle Times
(2), http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
html/opinion/
2008682441_opinb29gaza.html. *
• Matthew J. Morgan A Democracy is Born:
An Insider’s Account of the Battle Against
Terrorism in Afghanistan 2008
• Carothers, Thomas (January/February
2003), "Promoting Democracy and
Fighting Terror", Foreign Affairs: 84,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
20030101faessay10224/thomas-carothers/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
22
promoting-democracy-and-fighting-
terror.html. *
• Diamond, Larry (2004), "The Long Haul",
Hoover Digest (2),
http://www.hooverdigest.org/042/
diamond.html. *
• Forsythe, David P. (2000), "U.S. Foreign
Policy and Enlarging the Democratic
Community" ( – Scholar search), Human
Rights Quarterly 22 (4): 988–1010,
doi:10.1353/hrq.2000.0043,
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/
access.cgi?uri=/journals/
human_rights_quarterly/v022/
22.4forsythe.html. *
• Gleditsch, Nils Petter; Lene Siljeholm,
Havard Hegre (April 13-18 2004),
"Democratic Jihad? Military Intervention
and Democracy", Paper presented at the
workshop on Resources, Governance
Structure and Civil War, Uppsala,
Sweden. Finds that democratization is
unpredictable in the long-term.
• Hay, William Anthony (April 28 2006),
"Can Democracy Be Imposed from the
Outside?", Foreign Policy Research
Institute (FPRI), http://hnn.us/roundup/
entries/24524.html. Alternative link.
International history of exporting
democracy. In the United States after
idealism fails, the goal becomes a realist
focus on stability and the protection of
American interests.
• Hermann, Margaret G.; Charles W.
Kegley, Jr. (1998), "The U.S. Use of
Military Intervention to Promote
Democracy: Evaluating the Record",
International Interactions 24 (2): 91–114,
doi:10.1080/03050629808434922. Uses
Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military
Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST
Codebook, University of Missouri,
Columbia, MO; 1997.
• Krasner, Stephen D. (November 26 2003),
"We Don’t Know How To Build
Democracy", Los Angeles Times,
http://cddrl.stanford.edu/news/
krasner_opinion_piece_in_la_times_asserts_we_dont_know_how_to_build_democracy_20031117/. *
• Lawson, Chappell; Strom C. Tucker
(2003), "Democracy? In Iraq?", Hoover
Digest 3 (3), http://www.hooverdigest.org/
033/lawson.html. This study points to 19
cases of U.S. intervention "in the last
century," including Afghanistan, Austria,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cuba, the
Dominican Republic, Germany, Grenada,
Haiti, Japan, the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama,
the Philippines, Somalia, South Korea, and
South Vietnam. In half of these cases
democratic institutions remained, in the
other half they did not. To determine the
success of Iraq becoming a democracy,
this study uses data compiled by Freedom
House measuring democracy in 186
countries, during four years, the years
1996 through 2000.
• Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991).
Exporting Democracy : The United States
and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins
University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.
• Meernik, James (1996), "United States
Military Intervention and the Promotion of
Democracy", Journal of Peace Research
33 (4): 391–402, doi:10.1177/
0022343396033004002,
http://links.jstor.org/
sici?sici=0022-3433(199611)33%3A4%3C391%3AUSM
• Pei, Samia Amin; Seth Garz (March 17
2004), "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-
Course", International Herald Tribune,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/
publications/
index.cfm?fa=view&id=1479. The study
finds that democracies built by the U.S.
begin to unravel in the decade after U.S.
forces depart, because political elites
begin to change the law to fit their own
interests. This study points to 14 cases of
U.S. intervention in the twentieth century.
• Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the
Point of Bayonets. University
Park:Pennsylvania State University Press.
ISBN 0-271-01883-6. This book finds that
when the U.S. interventions later
supported elections, the democracy was
more likely to succeed. This study points
to 25 cases of U.S. intervention between
1898 and 1992.
• Review: Shifter, Michael (Winter 2001),
"Democracy at the Point of Bayonets",
Latin American Politics and Society 43:
150, doi:10.2307/3177036,
http://ww.findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_qa4000/is_200101/ai_n8943833.
• Smith, Tony; Richard C. Leone (1995).
America’s Mission: The United States and
the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in
the Twentieth Century. Princeton
University Press. ISBN 0-691-04466-X.
• Tures, John A., "Operation Exporting
Freedom: The Quest for Democratization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
23
via United States Military Operations"
(PDF), Whitehead School of Diplomacy
and International Relations,
http://diplomacy.shu.edu/journal/new/pdf/
VolVINo1/09_Tures.pdf. PDF file. This
study points to 30 U.S. interventions
between 1945 and 1991. Also uses
Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military
Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST
Codebook, University of Missouri,
Columbia, MO; 1997.
• Tures, John A., "To Protect Democracy
(Not Practice It): Explanations of Dyadic
Democratic Intervention (DDI) The Use of
Liberal Ends to Justify Illiberal Means",
OJPCR: the Online Journal of Peace and
Conflict Resolution,
http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/
5_1tures.htm.
• Matthew J. Morgan "The American
Military after 9/11: Society, State, and
Empire" 2008
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States"
Categories: Foreign relations of the United States, United States federal policy, Foreign rela-
tions by country, United States law, Treaties
This page was last modified on 22 May 2009, at 17:00 (UTC). All text is available under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-
deductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foreign policy of the United States
24