U.S. Foreign Policy Making the World a Safer Place and Advancing America’s Interests: Compatible Objectives??
Does USA Need a Foreign Policy?
Foreign Policy Goals
Defense Trade Humanitarian Supporting similar cultures/ideals Kinship Intelligence… i.e. knowing what others are doing Law Enforcement (a recent manifestation?) Image making
Foreign Policy Under President Bush
Seen as bold, some would say radical. Driven by events on 9/11 and America’s desire to secure from terrorism Heavily focused on Middle East Focused on allies (i.e. multilateral), but not as heavily as in the past
The Axis of Evil
Line used by President in State of the Union to describe Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea Public characterization that was opposed by many left of center governments around the world Seen as too confrontational by many
Axis of Evil Nations
Iraq – Saddam killed 30,000 Kurds in uprising after first Gulf War – Human Rights grps. Accused Saddam regime of committing "massive and systematic" human rights violations, particularly against women. The report spoke of public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children. The heads of the victims were publicly displayed near signs reading, "For the honor of Iraq." North Korea – Completely failed economy has lead to 2 million deaths – Averaged 7 year old weighs 20… that’s TWENTY pounds. – State sponsored kidnappings of hundreds of foreign nationals Iran – Primary sponsor of Hezbollah; terrorist organization that bombed Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 killing 241 servicemen. – Bombed a Jewish culture center in Argentina that killed 85 civilians
War in Iraq
What is Unilateralism: In foreign policy, acting without allies help or approval. Usually implies action in spite of disapproval. President Bush accused of unilateralism when he failed to get a UN Security Council resolution supporting war but invaded Iraq nonetheless. UN Security Council: Permanent Five includes U.S., China, Russia, France and Great Britain.
War in Iraq
Coalition of the Willing – Group of allies that supported U.S. mission in Iraq – Included: Great Britain, Japan, Spain, Australia, Poland, etc. (see: this link) – Soldiers Provided:
USA: 250,000 invasion (145,000 now) UK: 45,000 invasion Poland: 2,400 invasion Australia: 2,000 invasion
First Gulf War
United States: 550,000 troops Saudi Arabia: 20-40,000 troops Turkey: 50,000 troops (didn’t fight in any battle) United Kingdom: 43,000 troops Egypt: 35,000 troops Pakistan: 5,500 troops Morocco: 2,000 troops Honduras: 150 troops Kuwait: 7,000 troops
Largest Militaries in the World
China – 2,840,000 United States – 1,431,000 Russia – 1,200,000 India – 1,145,000 North Korea 1,055,000
Projecting Naval Power
Nations with largest navies, 2002-03
Country
Frigates
Destroyers
Submarines
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
USA *# China Russia *# Japan France *# UK # India # S. Korea Italy *# Taiwan Turkey Germany N. Korea Pakistan Egypt
62 42 17 10 31 21 11 9 15 21 19 12 3 8 10
55 21 14 44 3 11 8 6 4 11 2 0 0 1
72 69 53 16 10 16 16 20 6 4 13 14 26 10 4
Projecting Air Power: Countries with biggest air forces
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Country
Aircrafts
Personnel
USA
2000
590,000 130,000 470,000 150,000 110,000 90,000 70,000 75,000 32,000 20,000
Russia China Ukraine India France UK Germany Israel Italy
2100 4500 850 850 850 550 500 450 300
Influencing Other Nations
U.S. has 3 broad categories of power – Hard Power: Military, Para-military, funding other militaries – Sticky Power: Commercial… binding nations to the U.S. with trade – Soft Power: Diplomacy, cultural, setting an example, allowing foreign visitors
Programs to Influence Foreign Affairs
$950 billion in military expenditures worldwide… $466 billion U.S. spending $20.9 billion in Foreign Aid in 06 – $2.8 billion to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis worldwide – $1.77 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation to reinforce sound political, economic and social policies in developing countries – $2.3 billion in military aid for Israel; $1.3 billion for Egypt
The Realities of the New World Order
America is the world’s only superpower With the end of the Cold War countries that were previously aligned with one camp or the other are free agents. Many have fewer incentives to “behave”. Finance/capital flows are global. Nations have less control over their economies. Weapons proliferation: The U.S. views its greatest danger as smuggled nukes. Another great danger in the
New World Order (continued)
Rise of mega-powers in Asia: China and India Japan unbound: Beginning to look towards “self defense” more seriously Radical, and globalized Islam Africa: Still the world’s weakling though some progress Latin America: Populism trumps progressivism Europe: Efforts to consolidate EU stalled. Countries not willing to step up and play to the extent their power allows. Often sees themselves as permanent opposition to “Cowboy” Americans.
New World Order (continued)
Middle East – Signs of democracy but old guard is very entrenched. – Sunni-Shiite schism has potential for conflict – Iraq is probably regional linchpin. Moderate success will be stabilizing. Failure may lead to competition among nations for Iraqi assets… political and physical Russia: Under Putin has attempted to get back on the path to great power status. Democracy foes on the rise. Fears U.S. influence among former Soviet satellites. (Former satellites want to get closer to Europe, U.S.) South West Asia: Muslim extremism problems in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand. Australia: More conservative, pro-American version of Britain under PM Howard Globalization….
Globalization
Refers to decreased relevance for national borders Goods and people travel around the world with ease Commercial rise of India and China Western powers still lobby for free-trade…. Though still protect certain key constituencies. Economy based less on industrial might and more on information Two big holdouts: Certain economic losers and oil producing nations.
Foreign Policy Players
President: Tremendous powers of persuasion (bullypulpit), Constitutional Powers America’s Armed Forces: DoD or Pentagon, Army, Navy (and Marines), Air Force Federal Bureaucracies – Led by Presidential political appointees – CIA, State
Congress: Holds the purse strings and can use them to bind the administration to their will. Private Sector: Ethnic groups, groups representing nationalities and advocating for nations, Christians (Israel)
Guns or Butter?
Guns or Butter?
On Aug. 3, 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson sent a message to Congress in which he said that the United States could not continue to fight a war in Vietnam and at the same time continue his Great Society programs without, among other things, raising taxes. … It was titled "The Hard and Inescapable Facts."
Social Programs of Bullets?
Most wars forced the government to revise its budgetary and tax priorities. In other words, cut spending and increase taxes. Not so Vietnam -- not for a long while, anyway. LBJ ultimately hit the fiscal wall, and when he did so, Americans had to decide whether Vietnam was worth the bucks. His political position worsened.
America’s Strands of Foreign Policy
Four distinct approaches to foreign policy, which he associates with four towering figures from America's past: – – – –
Hamilton Jefferson Jackson Woodrow Wilson
Hamiltonianism
The followers of Alexander Hamilton have sought since Revolutionary times to foster the expansion of a vibrant national economy. They have worked to open foreign markets and ensure freedom of the seas, cultivating allies where necessary to build an ''international legal and financial order'' that permits ''the broadest possible global trade in capital and goods.''
Wilsonian
By contrast, the disciples of Woodrow Wilson strive to make the world safe for democracy. Mead sees Wilsonianism as the secular manifestation of a powerful American missionary impulse. Wilsonians hope to improve the human condition by spreading democratic self-governance and creating international institutions that will help prevent war.
Jeffersonian
Jeffersonians love liberty too, but they are more concerned with protecting it at home than with trying to promote it overseas. Indeed, they fear that the very instruments necessary to spread democracy (especially a big military, an activist federal government and the high taxes needed to pay for both) could pose threats to domestic political and economic freedoms.
Jacksonian
Spiritual, if no longer merely the lineal, descendants of the Scottish-Irish immigrants who settled much of the Old West… suspicious of elites… ''instinctively democratic and populist.'' Pessimistic about … Wilsonian and Hamiltonian projects for constructing a stable world order. Supportive of a strong military establishment, [but] disinclined to use it unless absolutely necessary. Once provoked, however, the Jacksonians believe that America's enemies must be brought to their knees, if necessary through the application of overwhelming armed force.