U.S.

Foreign Affairs 1

U.S. Foreign Affairs

U.S. Foreign Affairs: Is it the key to America’s might, or the reason for its downfall

Andrew Canfield

WR 123, Professor Donohue

12-8-09
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 2

U.S. Foreign Relations: Is it the Key to Americas Might; or the reason for its

downfall?

The United States of America is a great nation there is no doubt. In the

span of little more than 200 years, we have transformed from 13 distinct and

individual British Colonies struggling for survival along the Eastern seaboard to

the most powerful nation the earth has ever seen. This rise in power was not a

mistake. Our ancestors took it upon themselves to create a democratic

government that put the power of governing a nation state into the hands of the

people. Of the Ideas that they instilled were the ideas of expansion, protection,

and ensuring that no one threatened our ability to grow economically and

geographically. The practice of expansion that was born with the nation

continues today as America, in her quest to ensure she remains unchallenged,

pushes further and further beyond her borders, sometimes within the frame work

of a coalition, and sometimes unilaterally. Although direct foreign aid from the US

has benefited millions worldwide, activity abroad focuses on US interests to the

detriment of the international community, which can lead to anti-American

sentiment. If our citizens will act to change current foreign policy to improve

representation of our nation overseas, we will be more prosperous and secure in

the long term.

 U.S. Foreign Affairs 3

America: Isolationist or expansionist?

The American expansion across North America during the 19th century

occurred despite strong resistance from American Indians, Mexicans, and the

European powers. This move westward concerned the major European powers

of the time because the new world had great promise in resources. However,

wars and strife occurring in Europe along with the major geographical separation

prevented them from halting the flow of Americans West. Now that there is no

more real estate on N. America to gobble up, America looks elsewhere for places

to encroach upon in order to secure its dominance. Unfortunately, the rest of the

world will not likely approve of this unilateral action for long and may begin to

push back. Currently no other country in the world can compete with us

individually. However, if blocks of countries joined to compete with the US, we

could have a significant challenge. Our goal then should be to develop a foreign

policy that is considerate of other countries around the world. Our stance should

be that we stand with the rest of the world for global peace, prosperity, and a

healthy climate.

My original purpose for writing this paper was to research America’s

influence on other countries through our foreign policy and affairs. My goal: to

find out if our actions in and influence on these developing nations is good or bad

for the citizens of that country. The secondary goal was to find out how we

benefit from these relationships. I decided to use a case study in order to show

how years of U.S. influence impacts the smaller countries. I soon realized that

our US foreign policy does not only affect the citizens of those countries but it
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 4

also affects US citizens. How do our actions overseas affect US citizens you

might ask? Worldview of the US is formed by activity conducted overseas by US

representatives. This activity could be military operations, humanitarian efforts, or

diplomatic negotiations. If this view turns to hatred due to poor US foreign policy,

it can lead to hostile actions against Americans. Sometimes these actions are

indirect such as anti-American protests and burning the stars and stripes or direct

such as the airline attacks on September 11, 2001. Authors Burma and Margalit

point out that some people from other countries including China felt deep

satisfaction after this horrific incident because the twin towers, a symbol of

America’s power and wealth and imperial, global, capitalist dominance was

destroyed in less than two hours (Burma & Margalit 2004). Therefore, during my

research, I realized that the more important question was not how we have

affected other countries, but how our actions in other countries affect us. And, will

the US continue to be a primacy for good in 50 years, or will we suffer another,

less fortunate fate?

I believe the answers to these questions directly relate to our foreign

policy. If we choose to embrace a foreign policy that is inclusive and driven by

morals and values that seek to enhance the lives of others around the world, we

have a good chance of remaining very powerful and continuing to influence the

globe as a force for good into the foreseeable future. If, on the other hand, we

continue down the road of unilateralism, isolationism, and acting on only strategic

or economic objectives, we will create a hostile world in which war will be

inevitable. Our goal, the preservation of America as a world leader and the safety
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 5

of US citizens will only be achieved through action. We must educate ourselves

about US foreign policy and then educate others. We must discuss and debate

our values and our goals for interacting with other countries and we must make

our wishes known to our elected officials in order to shape foreign policy. To

understand our current policy, it is important to look at the past, at the beginnings

of U.S. foreign relations.

A Brief History of U.S. Foreign Relations

Throughout our history, the U.S. has been involved diplomatically and

economically with most countries around the world. Our strategy with those

countries came to be US foreign policy and the action of US representatives in

those countries, U.S. foreign Affairs, and together, foreign relations. Our first

foray into foreign relations came just on the brink of the revolutionary war. In his

book, From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations since 1776, George

Herring points out that the Model Treaty, drafted by John Adams, was created in

order to generate support from France and other European countries for the

colonist’s ambition to cede from Britain. Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane were

tasked with the assignment to travel to France in order to begin diplomatic

negotiations. They were successful in obtaining support from these countries

without being obligated to them. The primary enticement they used was the

opportunity to trade with the new country un-impinged by Britain (Herring, 2008).

This strategic alliance resulted in our victory and ultimate succession from the

crown. US diplomatic efforts are often mutually beneficial for all parties involved;

however, our military operations are not.

 U.S. Foreign Affairs 6

Our country first extended its military might outside our borders at the turn

of the century only 20 years after winning our independence. In the book Victory

in Tripoli, the author discusses pirates from North African nations along the

Barbary Coast repeatedly captured our trade boats and their crews. These large

commercial vessels were held for ransom instead of bringing their cargo to

countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (London, 2005). Initially, our

congress and president went along with this by paying hefty sums, but finally

were fed up. George Herring writes that Thomas Jefferson dispatched four Navy

vessels in order to “protect our commerce and chastise their insolence by sinking

burning or destroying their vessels and ships” (Herring, 2008). Over a period of

five years, we sent more ships and some Marines fighting our way to the capitol

of Tripoli. This battle may seem insignificant economically or militarily but it had

“enormous psychological and ideological significance for the United States”

(Herring, 2008). This battle became folklore and gave Americans a renewed

sense of mission and destiny. Not only did we fend off the pirates but also we

faced and defeated tyrannical Islamists across the sea. In the American’s minds,

this was a victory for liberty and Christianity. From this point on, America has

taken an aggressive posture towards anyone who threatens our sovereignty,

freedom, security, or otherwise challenges the United States. Defending trade

ships in the Mediterranean is an easy choice, but sometimes it is difficult to

discern the line between being threatened and our desire to extend our

dominance.
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 7

The overwhelming tendency is to think of ourselves as a peace-loving

nation that only gets involved in war if threatened by outside forces. While this is

a romantic notion, it could not be further from the truth. Many Americans surely

want peace around the world, but few countries have had as much experience

fighting war than the US. Early on in our history, we fought small wars with

France and again with Britain in the War of 1812, mostly over trade and land, not

because we were directly attacked. Steven Hook, a professor at Kent State

University, discusses Manifest Destiny in his book US Foreign policy: The

Paradox of World Power. The US desire to expand west was increased due to

rapid population increases and the lure of land ownership and the natural

resources that accompanied that land. Our insatiable appetite to acquire new

land resulted in the American Indian, Spanish American and Mexican American

wars. These wars were not fought because we were defending our lands, or

protecting ourselves from advancing forces. They were fought because the US

was driven by a “cult of nationalism” that provided a morale basis for expansion

(Hook, 2005). Once the United States occupied North America from coast to

coast and dominated the Western Hemisphere, known as a regional hegemony,

we were in a position to flex our military muscle overseas in order to advance our

political and ideological views while gaining land and resources to contribute to

our burgeoning superpower status.

The 20th Century saw World War 1 & 2, Korean War, Vietnam Conflict, and

other smaller scale operations (Panama, Kosovo and Somalia to name a few) in

which the US was heavily involved. Fortunately, our geographic location in the
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 8

world, and sheer military might protect us from threats and therefore, besides the

attack on Pearl Harbor, no fighting was conducted on US soil during the 20th

century. While Europe picked up the pieces from two major wars in a half

century, America was relatively untouched and was able to increase our

population exponentially and create an economy unequalled in the world. Our

primary adversary in the second half of the 20th century was a growing nuclear

and communist threat in the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Michael

Mandelbaum theorizes that in the process of defending itself against the Soviet

Union and international communism, the United States gained a position of

international supremacy (Mandelbaum, 2005). Whether we wanted it or not, the

United States gained the title as the remaining world power and along with that

title, all the responsibilities. As I have demonstrated, the US has been involved in

military conflict since its inception. If we regard ourselves as a peace loving

nation, why are we constantly and perpetually engaged in armed conflict?

Why does the US get involved in other countries affairs?

Since defense of our homeland was not the primary reason for entering

the aforementioned conflicts, what was? We’ve seen that historically the US

entered armed conflict in order to expand our territorial holdings, improve our

global economic position, and protect our country and its citizens from outside

threats. This leads me to believe that these three factors are the primary reasons

we continue to engage militarily. Security, economic advancement, and political /

ideological persuasion are primary considerations when engaging with other

countries worldwide. In most cases, political rhetoric and media outlets lead us to
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 9

believe we send our troops to fight against tyranny and communism or to prevent

the tragic torture or slaughter of innocent people. This may be the case but often

other motives are at work as well.

In his State of the Union address in 1980, President Jimmie Carter made

clear our purpose for supporting Afghanistan against Russian hostility. He said

that the region upon which the Russians are intruding has 2/3rds of the world’s

exportable oil and “that strategic position, therefore, poses a grave threat to the

free movement of Middle East oil” (Carter, 1980). Many consider our motives for

invading Iraq were along these same lines, to secure precious oil for an energy

hungry nation. While these issues are important to American economic health,

what price is worth continued economic health? Is it worth creating throngs of

foreigners who hate Americans, America, and what we stand for? Reasons why

we get involved vary, but often times major corporations who stand to gain

financially during times of war directly influence our foreign policy. With the lack

of input from the masses, government administrators are left to create policy

based on the political climate and input from lobbyist groups representing these

corporations. In order to form an opinion about how we should change our

foreign policy, it is important to know what our current policy is.

What is the current US foreign policy?

The status of our foreign relations varies with the Executive branch of

government along with current world political climate. In order to get an

understanding of our current foreign policy, let us look to the current Secretary of
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 10

State’s congressional address. In her statement to the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee during her appointment hearing, Senator Clinton spelled out the Dept

of State’s current goals stating that “our overriding duty is to protect and advance

America’s security, interests, and values: First, we must keep our people, our

nation, and our allies secure. Second, we must promote economic growth and

shared prosperity at home and abroad. Finally, we must strengthen America’s

position of global leadership – ensuring that we remain a positive force in the

world…” (Clinton, 2009). This statement shows that our utmost priority regarding

foreign relations is protection of American interests. While this is a noble goal to

ensure the long term strength of America, it does not take into account the

broader global climate. This protectionism of America’s interests could lead to the

unwanted results of “blowback”.

In the movie Why we Fight, Chalmers Johnson, former CIA operative,

states that the term blowback refers to the unintended consequences of secret

action in foreign countries. An example of this can be seen in the actions of the

US in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. During this period, the US supported radical

Islamic groups in order to thwart Russian offensives. Author Noam Chomsky

alludes to the fact that after successful defense of their country, the radicals

formed groups like Al Qaeda that began training terrorists that some think lead to

the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (Chomsky, 2003).

Terrible acts like this may be preventable through thoughtful and considerate

diplomatic policy. Our current foreign policy gives us an idea how we might
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 11

interact with other nations today. I will try to give some perspective on a country

that has been heavily influenced by the US since its inception.

Panama’s Experience in the Shadow of America

Panama is an ideal case study because the U.S. has been involved in

Panama since its inception as a sovereign nation. Author Lindsay-Poland points

out that from the earliest beginnings in the mid 1800’s, when freedom fighters

wanted to gain independence from Columbia, to the present, the US has had a

stake in Panama for distinct strategic and economic reasons (Lindsay-Poland,

2003). Our first experiences in Panama occurred in order to create a railway to

ship goods across the isthmus. Once completed, this gave the U.S. the ability to

transport people and goods from East to West coasts and vice-versa much more

quickly and cheaply. Then our desire to build a canal in the early 1900s

continued to make Panama a key economic and strategic location. Soon after we

assisted Panama in becoming an independent nation, we signed a treaty giving

us the rights and the land to build the Panama Canal. This shortcut through

Central America gave the US a major advantage in order to transport trade and

move military ships quickly from the Pacific to Atlantic oceans. In his book, The

History of Panama, Robert Harding points out that America’s interest in Panama

was primarily focused on the canal and therefore our relations with Panama’s

government depended on the security and functioning of the canal. This meant

“Panama’s ability to govern itself was influenced and frequently hampered by the

overwhelming U.S. presence (Harding, 2006).

 U.S. Foreign Affairs 12

Panama did not have the ability to run a democratic government by the

people without outside influence from their neighbors to the North. Disgruntled

Panamanians often felt oppressed and demonstrated their feelings of resentment

by massing in the streets. Often university students gathered in order to rally

against oppressive, white, oligarchic governments who were often instated with

backing and security of the U.S. military. This often led to violence between

protestors and security forces, which sometimes resulted in the deaths of

protestors. These clashes only exacerbated the problems and led to strong Anti-

American sentiment on the isthmus. In the encyclopedia of globalization under

the heading, Anti Americanism, it states that “more than a century of direct

political and military interventions has led large segments of Latin American

populations to consider the United States as a colonial power” (Scholte &

Robertson 2007).

After nearly 100 years occupying the Canal Zone, we were due to turn the

canal back over to the Panamanians. In 1989, ten years prior to relinquishing

control over the canal over, we invaded Panama under the guise of the war on

drugs. Five days prior to the invasion, President Manuel Noriega had fool-

heartedly declared a state of war with the United States. Our objective was to

arrest Noriega, a known sympathizer with drug trafficking cartels. Our alternative

objective, theorizes author John Lindsay-Poland, was to topple the Panamanian

Defense Force, making it impossible for them to defend the canal. With the

defense force devastated, the U.S. would have to continue operations in Panama

after the changeover date in order to defend the canal (Lindsay-Poland 2003).
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 13

Harding wrote that according to a CBS News poll, 80% of Panamanians

supported the invasion despite Red Cross conservative estimates that over 3,000

civilians perished in the skirmish. Another terrible side effect of the US action was

rampant looting and destruction after the Panamanian Defense Force was

rendered useless. US officials estimated the economic loss at over 2 billion

dollars and 10,000 Panamanians were left homeless (Harding 2006).

The US presence in Panama was a controversial subject for

Panamanians from the outset. A CQ Researcher article about the subject

discusses the fact that Yankee ingenuity was critical in order to build Panama’s

greatest economic asset yet, the US policy toward their country generated

enduring resentment that Panamanians came to view as American Imperialism

against their defenseless nation (Cooper 1999). Even as numerous military

interventions in the isthmus have caused strife for Panamanians. Our presence

in the region has contributed greatly to its current strong economic status. This

leads me to believe that our overall influence on the country has been positive

and has allowed Panama to be in a good position to prosper as an independent

nation with a strong sense of national pride. The difficulty of the current situation

is that over the last century our actions in the country have contributed to

negative sentiment to the US. It is important for the US to remain a powerful

force for good in Panama and around the world, but sometimes we may overstep

our bounds and create great suffering and pain in our attempt to achieve our

objectives which leads to further anti-Americanism.

What can we do as citizens to make a difference?

 U.S. Foreign Affairs 14

Hegemony, hyper-power, and sole remaining superpower are terms to

describe the United States of America’s status in the world. We are at a critical

point in our history never before seen. Our actions and interaction with others

around the world will have huge implications on the future of our country. The

book The End of an American Era compares the Roman and British Empires to

modern day America. Rome’s and Britain’s military were unequaled in their time.

This dominance led to an extended era of peace and prosperity that improved

the flow of trade and drove scientific development. According to C. Kupchan, the

US spends more on our military than all other major countries combined and our

economy is twice the size of the next largest economy. (Kupchan, 2002). History

has shown what happened to those major superpowers. They collapsed due to

many factors including massive overspending and over-extension of military

forces.

Our involvement overseas will not only affect how our country moves

forward, but will affect millions of others worldwide. This is neither a small issue

nor one to be taken lightly. All US citizens should take an interest in foreign

policy. It is crucial that we as Americans debate our views on these issues and

make our views known to policy makers so that we can improve our status

around the globe. One of the first things you can do to make a difference in this

matter is get educated about how our foreign policy works.

The US foreign policy agenda is ever changing and is influenced by public

opinion. As in the case with Panama, public outrage that the US controlled a

major portion of the country and the largest source of the countries income led to
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 15

public demonstrations and eventually a treaty that gave control of the Canal Zone

to Panama. Our policies are created by congress and carried out by the

executive office through the president, Department of State, and the Department

of Defense. If we get involved by voicing our opinions, we can influence our

congressional representatives to enact legislation for change of our foreign

policy. Most Americans are more concerned about the flavor of their morning

coffee than what our current direction for Afghanistan is, but what they do not

realize is that it will affect them one way or another at some point in time.

Therefore, it would be wise to join the conversation instead of waiting for the

blowback.

In the absence of sheer majority will, others will step in to form US foreign

policy to their benefit. Our government spends billions and billions of dollars

overseas every year through our DOD and aid programs. Government and non-

government organizations with agendas interact with the policy makers and

influence foreign policy. The policy, when created in this manor, usually benefits

those who helped form the policy. An example of this is a corporation who

manufactures aircraft for military operations who donates millions of dollars to the

campaign of a congressional representative who is in favor of military action in a

foreign country.

It is easy to see why U.S. corporations take a huge interest in U.S. foreign

policy. It has a direct impact on their ability to do business with countries around

the world. With only big business working with (lobbying) Congress to help
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 16

influence and draft policy, you can see how the policy could get a little lop-sided

and not reflect the wishes of the U.S. citizenry as a whole.

What’s in store?

American foreign policy is a convoluted subject, to say the least. This topic

does not concern most Americans during peacetime, but enthralls the nation

during times of crisis and war. It is for this reason that the U.S. government and

Americans in general have difficulty coming to a consensus about our direction in

foreign policy and foreign relations. Our government was developed 200 years

ago in order to promote democracy and freedoms for the citizens. Author Steven

Hook argues that this same government, which is ideal for providing fair and just

governance to its citizens, is not the ideal make up for creating and carrying out

affairs abroad (Hook, 2004). For this reason, it is imperative that we as a nation

do not rely on our elected officials to develop foreign policy but to get actively

involved.

The US became the sole superpower in the late 80’s after the fall of the

iron curtain and the Soviet Union collapse. For over 40 years, the American

foreign policy focus was the cold war, deterring communism and promoting

democracy worldwide. When we won the cold war, we lost our strategic and

military focus. We are at a crucial time in our history. What we do now will

determine our nations future. Will we continue to lead the world as a force for

good? Or, will we meet the same fate as our historic predecessors?
 U.S. Foreign Affairs 17

References

Buruma, I., & Margalit, A. (2004). Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of its

enemies. New York: The Penguin Press

Carter, J. (1980). State of the Union. Retrieved November 17 from

www.britannica.com/bps/.../18/8875232/State-of-the-Union-1980

Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or survival: America's quest for global

dominance. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Clinton, H. (2009). Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Retrieved November 17, 2009, from

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/01/115196.htm

Cooper, M. H. (1999, November 26). Panama canal. CQ Researcher, 9, 1017-

1040. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online,

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1999112609.

Harding, R. (2006). The history of Panama. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Herring, G. C. (2008). From colony to superpower : U.S. foreign relations since

1776. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hook, S. (2004). U.S. foreign policy: The paradox of world power. Washington:

CQ Press.

Kupchan, C. (2002). The end of the American Era: US foreign policy and the

geopolitics of the twenty-first century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

 U.S. Foreign Affairs 18

Lindsay-Poland, J. (2003). Emperors in the jungle: the hidden history of US in

Panama. Duke: Duke University Press.

London, J. (2005).Victory in Tripoli: How America's War with the Barbary Pirates

Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Mandelbaum, M. (2005). The case for goliath: how America acts as the world's

government in the twenty-first century. New York: Public Affairs

Scholte, J. A., & Robertson, R. (2007). Encyclopedia of Globalization (Vol. 1).

New York: MTM Publishing, Inc.