Um, I already know how a bill becomes a law. Why am I taking this exam again?
Download 0.75 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Presidents Foreign Policy Power
- Theories of International Relations
- Foreign Policy Tools
- Latin America
- Internationalism
- Terrorism
- International Trade
- Study Break
Foreign PolicyHave You Read This?If yes, click here. Really, this is not a hard section. You can learn everything you need to know about foreign policy by watching Team America: World Police. Go ahead and rent a copy. We'll wait. Okay, American foreign policy isn't all about blowing stuff up. (It's mostly about that, but still.) In reality, American foreign policy is a complex and nuanced dance, whose many and varied moods include threatening to blow stuff up, promising to blow stuff up and then reconsidering, blowing people up, and pledging not to blow something up, and then, the last minute, reconsidering and blowing it up anyway. Your path to mastering those nuances starts in this section.
At the same time, Congress does retain some power in foreign policy. The Senate must approve all treaties and presidential nominees to foreign policy roles (Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, etc.). And only Congress can declare war and approve military spending (although we saw in the last unit that the president is able to commit troops with immediate Congressional approval). Theories of International RelationsHere at Shmoop, we tend to abide by the theory of "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out." But nobody asked us, so America is stuck with two other theories that aren't nearly as catchy. One of those theories is realism. Foreign policy realists would describe themselves as unsentimental about the world and our place in it. They see foreign policy as all about the pursuit of the nation's interests, not any loftier ideals. And because there's no governing structure for the world as a whole (like a federal government to rein in the states), realists accept that the world is all about competition for nations whose interests come into conflict. That doesn't mean that realists are more likely to advocate war or neglect international alliances—but it does mean that realists believe that every state is fundamentally looking out for itself, and we'd be foolish to do otherwise. The other big theory is liberalism (which, keep in mind, is not the same as liberalism in domestic policy). Foreign policy liberals are, well, a bit squishier. They have a more optimistic view of human nature and of the potential for world order, and so they stress international cooperation for shared goals. They value ideals like human rights and democratization as much as the national interest. While realists see international relations as zero-sum (win-lose), liberals focus on situations that can be non-zero-sum (win-win). As a result, liberals are strong advocates of institutions to promote cooperation, like the United Nations and international law. Of course, these are two big tents, and there are lots of variations within each philosophy. Also remember that these schools of thought do not really line up neatly with political parties. President George W. Bush was famous for his unilateral (or go-it-alone) attitude to international affairs, but he also made democracy promotion a key part of American foreign policy; President Obama takes a more multilateral approach (stressing cooperation with other countries toward shared goals), but he also has a more realist attitude that downplays aggressive democracy efforts. Foreign Policy ToolsAside from everyone's favorite foreign policy tool, SEAL Team Six, the American government has several other options for achieving its interests. These include: Diplomacy: America keeps embassies in all of the countries it recognizes (that is, conducts conventional foreign relations with); these embassies house ambassadors and staff that are crucial to day-to-day diplomatic work. Diplomacy and negotiation is also conducted on higher levels, in meetings between Cabinet-level secretaries or ministers, and in summits between the president and foreign leaders. Foreign aid: The U.S. maintains a significant foreign aid budget—but it still spends less on foreign aid (as a percentage of our economy) than other Western countries. Some of our aid money goes to international development, AIDS prevention, and other humanitarian goals. But a larger percentage goes to countries that are important to the United States strategically. For instance, we spend a good deal of foreign aid on Israel—and, since Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, on Egypt, as well. Economic sanctions: Sanctions (or prohibitions of certain kinds of international trade) are an important tool to bring pressure on other nations without the use of military force. For instance, the U.S. and its allies have placed strong economic sanctions on Iran in an effort to get that nation to give up its nuclear program. Political coercion: In times of particularly strained relations, countries may break off diplomatic ties or recall ambassadors. Covert operations: Presidents have long relied on the CIA, covert branches of the armed forces, and other covert agencies to achieve foreign policy goals without publicizing them. Examples include the failed Bay of Pigs operation (an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro) under President Kennedy; the rendition program under President George W. Bush, in which suspected terrorists were transferred to foreign countries for harsh interrogation and sometimes torture; and President Obama's use of covert drone strikes to target al Qaeda members. Military intervention: Generally the last resort when it comes to achieving foreign policy ends, we usually only try military intervention when the tools above have failed. That doesn't mean that Americans don't love them some military intervention: we maintain troops on bases around the world (including in Germany and Japan, more than a half-century after World War II). And we have staged an average of nearly one military intervention in another country, on a small or large scale, since 1789. Latin AmericaFor many years, America's foreign policy attitude toward Latin America could be summed up in one word: "dibs!" America considered South and Central America its backyard (and didn't particularly care how the South and Central Americans felt about it). This attitude was first put forward in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823—a warning to European powers that colonial encroachment on the countries of the western hemisphere would be viewed as "dangerous to our peace and safety." It was a bold and unenforceable warning from the young republic, but President James Monroe knew that British interests in free trade and, therefore, the British navy, would add teeth to the warning. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt issued the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, declaring it America's intention to police the Western Hemisphere against external threats and internal instability. On several occasions, this policing assumed the form of military intervention (in Mexico, Haiti, Columbia, and Cuba). But President William Taft attempted to refocus American efforts in Latin America through "dollar diplomacy." He believed that expanded private investment in the region would strengthen its economy and improve American relations. President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to further improve American relations with its southern neighbors through the Good Neighbor Policy in the 1930s. The region, however, remains not entirely convinced of America's benign intentions. American intervention in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the 1980s was viewed by many within Latin America as the same old meddling in their domestic affairs. And as Latin American countries like Brazil have grown in economic power and political clout, they seem poised to take an even more independent role in the hemisphere in the years to come. InternationalismAmerica's most important line of defense isn't any branch of the military or particularly awesome weapons system. It's those two oceans on either side of us. For the 18th and 19th century, they allowed us to stay isolated from the rest of the world. Americans' preference for an isolationist stance is one reason why President Woodrow Wilson's attempt to establish an ongoing commitment to world affairs, through American participation in the League of Nations, was rejected. But World War II forced Americans to accept the fact that they could not remain isolated. America's new commitment to internationalism and collective security was reflected in its leadership in founding the United Nations in 1945. America's post-World War II internationalism was also reflected in the Truman Doctrine of 1947. Fearing the expansion of the Soviet Union, President Truman pledged the United States to support "free people" threatened by "armed minorities or outside pressure." This promise to prevent the expansion of communism everywhere in the world was also labeled the policy of containment. It was buttressed between 1947 and 1949 by the Marshall Plan (economic aid to poor nations vulnerable to communist influence), the creation of the CIA, and the formation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, an alliance originally directed against the Soviet Union).
WASHINGTON, DC–Taking steps to fill the void that has plagued the American military-industrial complex since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright announced Tuesday that the U.S. will hold enemy tryouts next week. Slated to begin Oct. 26, the tryouts will take place at the Pentagon. More than 40 nations are expected to vie for the role of U.S. adversary, including India, Afghanistan, China, North Korea and Sudan. Of course, the calm of the 1990s was shattered with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Since then, the focus of American international policy has shifted. The United States has lost more than 5,000 lives and spent more than $1 trillion in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Homeland Security was created to coordinate America's response to terrorism, control national borders, and coordinate the federal response to natural disasters. In addition, the multiple intelligence gathering agencies within the federal government (the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and sub-agencies within the armed forces, and Departments of Energy, Treasury and State) are all now coordinated by the National Intelligence Director.
In recent decades, American trade policy has emphasized free trade. In 1947 the United States joined other countries in signing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and in 1995 the United States helped form the World Trade Organization (WTO). Today, the WTO links more than 120 countries together in an agreement to reduce trade barriers and increase international commerce. Closer to home, the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada in 1994. The agreement promised to promote economic development within all three countries by removing trade barriers. And, in fact, trade between the three has increased significantly over the past fifteen years. But critics argue that American industries have relocated to Mexico in pursuit of cheaper labor and relaxed environmental standards. And Mexican farmers complain that they have been undercut in local markets by American foodstuffs subsidized by the federal government.
Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 0.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|