NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... terms about the long-range future of the security system. Note succeeded Kennan at the PPS and it was his NSC 68 written in 1949, which became the blueprint for American grand strategy in the cold war. Its analysis of Soviet intentions and capabilities set the tone and framework, at the highest levels, for US relations with the Soviet Union. The US reaction to the perceived Soviet threat was to be one of containment. The notion of rolling back the gains of communism however, was never actually pursued.
NSC- 68 argued for a massive military build-up in order to contain the Soviet Union and maintain American credibility. Now into the Twentieth Century the United States is a power of imperial dimensions that occupies three million square miles between the Atlantic and Pacific, controlling the Caribbean, and up to the Arctic. (Fish 1989, 285) Benjamin Schwartz, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, provides a concise summary of how U. S. policymakers and government leaders view U. S. responsibilities in the post-Cold War era.
During the Cold War, Schwartz argues, U. S. responsibilities focused on the duty of making the world safe for capitalism containing communist expansion and ensuring the creation of a capitalist world order with America at the helm (Schwartz 1996, 94). In the aftermath of the decline of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, both Schwartz argues, the basic trappings of United States foreign policy strong defense budget, economic rivalry with rising Asian powers, and a tendency towards hegemony over the Third World remain virtually unchanged. The U. S.
must continue to dominate the international system and thus discourage the advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role (Schwartz 1996, 100). As Schwartz explains, in the past two decades, the Pacific Rim has emerged as a vital economic interest to the United States, both in terms of direct and indirect investment flows and trade and in terms of the Asian role in the maintenance of the global liberal economic order. Another principle concern of U. S. foreign policy focus is controlling the action of so-called rogue states Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other countries (now possibly including Russia) which might engage in unilateral action to disrupt the established status quo.
As Schwartz observes, the potential for any of these states to take such action is unquestionable. Obviously, foreign investment is necessary for the future of developing other nations as well as our own. There must be an emphasis on foreign investment and trade, otherwise the third world nations will continue to fall behind economically, technologically, and domestically, which could lead to an economic downfall for the United States as well. The question then arises as to what the United States must do in order to have large trade agreements with other countries other than Japan and Mexico.
In order for the United States to play a more active role in the economic and political development of many of these developing nations, it must first accept a different philosophy than its current one. First, it is imperative for the United States to play a similar role in Latin America to the one Japan has played with many of the developing nations in East Asia. America neighbors Latin America, and if it wants to play the role of big brother, it must accept the responsibility. Japan has invested, traded, and has been a guide for many of its neighboring countries in East Asia, making them grow politically and economically, while profiting itself. The United States must realize that the economies of Latin American nations will play an important part in the future of our own economy, and that it must begin to lead, invest, and aid not just Mexico, but countries such as Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Columbia into the twenty first century. The mainstay in American foreign policy has always been to promote and instill democracy.
However, in order to do this in a foreign nation, America must be able to establish a viable economic relationship and system within the desired nations. We should not expect or want a nation to switch from a total authoritarian government to a market economy; doing so would be a disaster. The former Soviet Union is a notable example of this philosophy. Instead, the United States has to be willing to allow developing nations to invest its market before we invest in theirs. In return, a viable export and import system will be gradually but successfully established. However, it is essential for the economy of the developing nation to be monitored and run by government of that nation.
The United States should only be there for advising purposes. When a reasonable system has finally been achieved, then more American, laissez-faire type of economic network will be allowed to grow. The greatest challenge the United States faces is implementing a foreign policy that is consistent throughout the Middle East. Islamic nations are not likely to be responsive to ideas such as human rights, and democracy. These nations will never be responsive to western ideas when the United States continues to impose sanctions against them. America is lucky to have an ally in Saudi Arabia and Israel.
This allows them to implement many of these foreign policy agendas against the other Middle Eastern countries, without having to face serious economic consequences in the oil and gas industry. As the United States increases its strength as a world power, other countries believe that the U. S. has gone too far in its task for world peace and justice.
The United States has begun to infringe on these countries, forcing its beliefs and ideals upon not only their government, but their public as well. Benjamin Schwarz said, The object of foreign policy cannot be to transform societies or change mens hearts. Defending Americas security by containing, deterring, and fighting a hostile country is one thing; attempting that defense by fundamentally influencing internal change is quite another (Tonelson 1991, 101). Thus, the question arises, Is the United States becoming the bully of the free world? a charge made by Gary Wills. (Drinan 1987, 1) It was during the forty years of the Cold War that the United States became accustomed to insisting on its own way in foreign affairs. (Drinan 1987, 4) The United States helped to remove indigenous leaders who did not conform to Americas dictates.
The new strategy for Americas role as a Superpower in the post-Cold War world must focus rigorously not on wishful thinking or fanciful ideologies but rather on the brutal economic, political, and environmental realities of the post-Cold War world as well as on the harsh realities of Americas genuine economic and political status in that world. It is in the American national self-interest that global economic stability and international security to be maintained. However, it is impossible for the United States to achieve this goal on its own. The solution lies not in a new bipolar system but rather in a new consensus on international diplomacy of multilateral and bilateral alliances among a broad spectrum of our international partners Europe, Russia, China, Japan countries that have some influence in the region. A sphere of influence is a cushion to soften the blow if the enemy is attacking. Nuclear war would destroy everyone nothing a sphere of influence can alter, but a conventional war; time would still be the main factor.
For example, if the Americans attacked Russia and there were no spheres of influence surrounding Russia the Americans could penetrate Russian soil on the same day they attacked. Now, if the spheres of influence were surrounding Russia the story would be different, the outcome positive for Russians. There are two positions one could take on this problem. Superpowers should or should not establish a sphere of influence in the world. A positive answers justification would be that a sphere of influence protects you from the enemy and protects weaker nations from the threat of a hostile takeover.
A negative answer would claim that this influence impairs smaller nations from making their own decisions and removes their freedom. My position on this question is yes. Smaller nations represent uncertainty, which could spell disaster. Especially those nations that are geographically close to my own nation. With so much uncertainty, so close to my own nation. One would be unintelligent to ignore such a problem.
Pursuing its economic interests, the United States has involved itself in many foreign conflicts around the world, making its presence known and showing that it is the only world superpower at present time. That approach is a blueprint for the indefinite prolongation of expensive and risky U. S. military commitments around the globe. (Carpenter 1992, 87) However, majorities of fifty-five to sixty-five percent of the American public say that events in Western Europe, Asia, Mexico, and even Canada have little or no impact on their lives. (Drinan 1987, 6) It is more evident now in the American public that there is a new sense of isolationism, which has never been absent from Americas thinking (Drinan 1987, 7) just suppressed. A broad consensus among these actors will itself serve as an effective counterweight to the disruptive efforts of the worlds rogue states (e. g. , Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. ).
Moreover, given that future disruptions of global stability are nearly as likely to arise as part of the unintended consequences of economic, environmental and political instability in the South as from the intended actions of rogue states, the United States and its international partners cannot afford to ignore or insulate themselves from the Third World. The United States along with its other international developed partners has both a responsibility and a need to encourage and facilitate sustainable growth and development in the Third World. Bibliography: Alavi, Mehdi. A New World Order: Democracy, Civility and World Peace. Houston: Alavi Publishing, 1998 Carpenter, Ted.
A Search for Enemies: America's Alliances After The Cold War, Washington D. C. : CATO Institute, 1992 Drinan, Robert F. Cry of the Oppressed: The History and Hope of the Human Rights Revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987. Tonelson, Alan. What Is The National Interest?
The Atlantic Monthly, 1991. Schwartz, Benjamin I. China and other matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996 Fish, Stanley. Doing What Comes Naturally: Change Rhetoric and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies. New York: Duke U.
Press, 1989 Internet: web
Free research essays on topics related to: spheres of influence, economic and political, soviet union, sphere of influence, post cold war
Research essay sample on Post Cold War Sphere Of Influence
