Category: Foreign Policy

Achieving collective action around the “national interest” is essential in foreign policy making. Given the threats inherent in the international system, Americans have an old adage that “politics stops at the water’s edge,” meaning that the nation should come together to achieve its common purposes in foreign policy. In addition to a concept of national interest, historical memory plays a pivotal role in foreign policy. Long ago, George Washington argued that America should have “as little political connection as possible” with foreign nations. Although this, America’s oldest foreign policy principle, still lingers in our political culture, America has nevertheless become an important world power necessarily and strategically tied to the world. This chapter considers the goals of American foreign policy, the relevant players in foreign policy making, the instruments of American foreign policy, and the American role in the world.

What are the goals of American foreign policy? How do these goals compete with, and reinforce, one another?

Security, prosperity, and the creation of a better world are the three most prominent goals of American foreign policy.

Security, the protection of America’s interests and citizens, is a perennial concern, but America has tried to achieve security in different ways throughout its long history.

In the nineteenth century, American foreign policy was dominated by a policy known as Isolationism, wherein America sought to avoid involvement in the affairs of other nations.

During the twentieth century, two world wars and a subsequent Cold War changed the calculations behind American foreign policy. Necessarily engaged with the world, America turned from isolationism to a more proactive policy of deterrence, wherein the nation would maintain a strong military in order to discourage foreign attacks.

Foreign policy changed again at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century when the demise of the Soviet Union decreased the relevance of deterrence and the new threats of rogue states and terrorism caused the George W. Bush administration to shift to a policy of preemption (that is, a willingness to strike first in order to prevent an enemy attack).

Economic prosperity, accomplished mostly through trade policy, is a second major goal of American foreign policy. Expanding employment in the United States, maintaining access to foreign energy supplies, promoting foreign investment in the United States, and lowering prices for American consumers are all aims of American foreign economic policy.

Promoting international humanitarian polices in ways that make the world a better place is a third goal of American foreign policy. Aims such as promoting international environmental policies, advocating for human rights, and keeping peace between nations all fall under this category.

The foreign policy of India regulates India’s relations with other states of the world in promoting its national interests. In recent years, there has been an unprecedented change in Indias foreign policy. The issues of Masood Azhar, the surgical strike, or the Indo-China tension all involved Indias foreign policy holders executing their work effectively.

Geographical factors As India occupies a central position in Asia and largest area in South Asia. The Himalayas are like sentinels of India playing an important role in determining relations with other Himalayan countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar. Though the desire of china to maintain its dominance in the region continuously since 1962 has a clear impact on India’s foreign policy, which has recently shown a relation with Nepal.

With this, India’s dominance over the Indian Ocean has become an important power of the Indian- Pacific region. At present it is an important trade route and communication for the whole world.

Population- India is the second most populous and youngest country in the world. And becoming a consumption -oriented country, in such situations it will fulfil the need of a big market for all the producing nations. But for a large population and problems like poverty there has been a dispute in the World Trade Union between India and America

Government System- ASEAN countries plagued by China look towards India because India’s democracy follows the principle of peaceful coexistence. But many times, in the parliamentary system, the role of state governments is also important because if there is a coalition government at the centre, as was shown in the Tamil issue in Sri Lanka and the 2005 US Nuclear Deal.

Regional Environment- Regional events are also important in determining foreign policy. In 1971, the alliance of China, US and Pakistan brought a crisis situation for India, then India got inclined towards Russia. At present, the increasing dominance of China is also a reason for intensification of India-US relations. India has increased India’s capacity and power with Look East to Act East policies and China’s rise in ASEAN.

Economic Development- Economic sovereignty is of utmost importance in determining foreign policy. Like its policy, India had to open its markets in 1991, but after that India has become very strong financially. India is an important energy consumer, with countries like Turkmenistan, Iran , Russia having economic alliances with India. But still the negative trade balance with China remains India’s main problem.

These elements are present in todays foreign policy of India, but the elements change constantly. IN modern times, it is necessary to determine policies keeping the national interest in mind.

Iakov Frizis examines the impact of modern media on foreign policy development in this essay. This paper looks at media in two ways: as an input source for decision-making and as a setting that actors must consider during policy formulation. The current structure, according to the author, is anarchic, competitive, and inter-polar, while states’ socialization is identified. Furthermore, the essay describes foreign policy as the expression of a country’s goals in the international arena, which are shaped by the relationship that exists between a country’s constraints and its national interests.

Foreign policy is the representation of a country’s interests against other nations. The relative degree determines the effectiveness of the articulation. No state can effectively achieve and maintain global hegemony due to the anarchic nature of the international system. The globe is far too big for any single country’s limited scope. As a result, in order to achieve stability and prosperity, a state must employ additional means to control other actors in the international system. Institutional interdependence and the liberal school of thought’s approach to foreign policymaking are two of the key elements that will direct us through the analysis of the media’s influence on a state’s relative level of prestige.

The following study is based on the principle that authority belongs to the people, not the ruling government. This implies that, in order to stay in power, the government is attempting to obtain popular support for its actions. As a result, the following syllogisms apply to all democratic and semi-autocratic systems as long as the government does not achieve dominance. This review will begin with a glance at the domestic power system. Then it will demonstrate how the media can influence the power balance between the government, the elites, and civil society. Last but not least, it will highlight how the growth of media has impacted the emergence of such media-driven phenomena. Even though the media has a great ability to control what people think about, it would be a failure to disregard their ability to manipulate people’s opinions. The media also focuses on ‘procedural framing.’ These strategies focus on making negative or constructive criticisms of how policy decisions are implemented. Substantive framing is another technique for expressing one’s view. In such a case, media evaluations are essential. The executive, the hierarchy, and the pluralist elements of the ‘manufacturing consent principle’ are thus revealed. According to the executive edition, the government exerts control over the media, encouraging them to frame their broadcasts in line with the government’s agenda. The elite version, on the other hand, describes non-conformity of the media to the government agenda as a byproduct. For example, we can see how Mr. Berlusconi, the former Italian Prime Minister and media tycoon, was able to become the country’s longest-serving postwar Prime Minister through a positive framing of his policies, despite the fact that, according to a counterfactual syllogism, Italy will most likely be better-off following policies other than those proposed by Berlusconi.

To sum up, this essay does not regard the media as another sovereign player in the international sphere, attempting to manipulate others in order to defend its own interests. It also doesn’t pay much attention to the reductionist interpretation of the people who may be in charge of the media. This essay has shown that the media can take on many forms, and that technology has evolved to allow for this. In other words, the game and the players have stayed the same, although the rules or factors that a player must consider, as well as the tactics that a player must use in order to “checkmate the opposing king, have modified and probably become more sophisticated. To put it another way, the transformation of media has had an effect on both the foreign and domestic structures.

The Progressive movement was a turn-of-the-century political movement interested in furthering social and political reform, curbing political corruption caused by political machines, and limiting the political influence of large corporations. Although many Progressives saw U.S. power in a foreign arena as an opportunity to enact the Progressive domestic agenda overseas, and to improve foreign societies, others were concerned about the adverse effects of U.S. interventions and colonialism.

The Progressive movement began with a domestic agenda. Progressives were interested in establishing a more transparent and accountable government which would work to improve U.S. society. These reformers favored such policies as civil service reform, food safety laws, and increased political rights for women and U.S. workers. In the 1890s, the Progressive movement also began to question the power of large businesses and monopolies after a series of journalistic exposes that revealed questionable business practices.

Throughout the 1890s, the U.S. Government became increasingly likely to rely on its military and economic power to pursue foreign policy goals. The most prominent action during this period, the Spanish-American War, resulted in U.S. rule of the former Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, as well as increased influence over Cuba. These territories captured in the Spanish-American war had a varied response toward U.S. occupation. In the Philippines, American forces faced armed insurgency, while in Puerto Rico, working-class and Progressive Puerto Ricans saw the United States as a successful counterweight to local sugar industry elites.

Many Progressives, including U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, saw no conflict between imperialism and reform at home -to them, both were forms of uplift, reform and improvement, and so they saw in these new colonies an opportunity to further the Progressive agenda around the world. However, especially after the violence of the Philippine-American War, other Progressives became increasingly vocal about their opposition to U.S. foreign intervention and imperialism. Still others argued that foreign ventures would detract from much-needed domestic political and social reforms. Under the leadership of U.S. Senator Robert La Follette, Progressive opposition to foreign intervention further increased under the Dollar Diplomacy policies of Republican President William Howard Taft and Secretary of State Philander Knox. However, Progressives remained mostly interested in domestic issues, and Republican Progressives sometimes hesitated to break party lines on foreign policy, hoping to ensure greater influence on domestic matters within the Republican Party. Similarly, after the election of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, Democratic Progressives also tended to follow Wilson’s lead on foreign policy issues, while the partisan reaction against them was led by Republican Progressives. Wilson also faced opposition from John Barrett, Director-General of the Pan-American Union, whom Wilson eventually forced out of office in 1919.

President Wilson may have had greater reservations about U.S. foreign intervention in the Americas than President Theodore Roosevelt, but he was willing to intervene in the Mexican Revolution. Concerns about possible German submarine warfare also caused him to order U.S. military interventions in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and also led to the purchase of the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark. The military occupations incorporated elements of the Progressive program, attempting to establish effective local police forces, reform land laws, build public infrastructure, and increase public access to education. However, these programs were hampered by local opposition to U.S. occupation and U.S. policies that inadvertently proved counterproductive. Where Progressive policies threatened to destabilize U.S. authority, U.S. officials in charge of occupying forces opted for stability rather than authentic Progressive changes.

In foreign policy, the Progressive movement also split over the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. Progressive U.S. Senator William Borah led the campaign against ratification, and he would increasingly become the champion of the isolationist movement until his death in 1940. Other Progressives viewed the treaty more favorably.

In the 1920s, the Progressive movement began to be supplanted by several different movements. In some cases, such as women’s suffrage, Progressive victory caused activists to lose momentum to push for further change. The Progressive wing of the Republican Party was weakened by the party splits of 1912 and 1924, which were attempts to form a third, Progressive party. The Progressive wing of the Democratic Party would eventually be subsumed under the broader New Deal coalition of Franklin Roosevelt. Foreign policy matters would increasingly be focused on the buildup to the Second World War, and Progressive issues took a back seat to the interventionist/isolationist split.

There has ever been changes in the world order in the sense that either a country whose economic, social and political spheres are much more advanced that they have a lot more say in the global environment than other less advanced countries. Or it could be that after winning in the battle field the winners come together and work on how the new world order should be shaped (usually done through international organizations like the United Nations or formally known as the League of Nations). The world order can either be unipolar (the dominance of the world order by a sole nation), bipolar (the dominance of the world order by two nations, could be an ideological war such as during the Cold War era), or it can be a multipolar arena where more than 2/3 countries have influence on the world order and have a lot more say than other countries. While speaking about the world order, USA`s dominance comes in mind due to them being an exceptional country in almost every field such as their power capacities and core political values. However, under the Trumps administration, we can clearly observe a different foreign policy approach compared to what we were used to under the Obamas administration. Trump pursues a more strait forward approach towards making foreign policies as he is more confident on applying personal diplomacy and he is usually on good term bases with other populist leaders like Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But luckily, Trump is not even backed by his own foreign policy elites. Such differences of ideas came in place with the dramatic actions that Trump made such as showing his misbelief in the efficiency of multilateralism and universalism by pulling out of the Paris climate agreement and the efforts he put in building a wall to protect US boarders and strengthen the nationalistic identity among his own citizens, by putting America first.

This paper will first define what the US’ foreign policy is like under the Trump administration, if it is in a broader sense successful or not. This paper will analyze the current debates on the relations between USA and its allies, focusing on the United States – Turkey relations with regard to the Operation Peace Spring which was conducted by Turkey in the goal of creating a so-called safe zone in order to create a breathing space in the immigration problem which Turkey is currently facing and with the same stone, eliminating the PKK threat to Turkish sovereignty. This paper will later on give light to the significant debate topics under the current united states – Turkey relations with regards to problems like Turkeys commitment to NATO, 2019 incursion to northeastern Syria and the purchase of Russian S-400 air defense system. In conclusion, other possible US actions and NATO implications together with possible Turkey/US actions are debated to find a common solution for the turbulent relationship between the two states.

USA Foreign Policy Under Trump

The administration of President Donald Trump does not seem to have established an efficient approach to dealing with relationships with the world. Even after almost three years in office, US foreign policy under Trump does not seem to be thought through properly as they seem based on random factors and decisions often seem to be based on the ability and perspective of an individual. Trump made a promise of ‘America first; which he later pursued by criticizing America’s traditional allies, breaking down international institutions and trying to cut foreign aid. He tried to impose sanctions on Mexico unless Mexican authorities dealt with the increase number of Mexican flow of immigrants across the United States and this hurt the US economy.

In the field of diplomacy, even though Trump entered the office with high confidence on his skills as a negotiator, he has shown a clumsy approach to diplomacy. After withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, the USA has not been able to figure out a way to reopen negotiations with them again. On the other hand, negotiations on denuclearization between North Korea and the United States failed to reach on mutual ends. While Trump is persisting on using tariffs as a blunt weapon in his diplomacy, he has turned away from foreign aid as he has threatened to cut US aid programs to Africa and at the same time, he has repeatedly accused his democratic allies as taking advantage of the USA’s exceptionalism. Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions are chaotic, rash and very randomized as they are not based on the advice of his cabinets as he even may not be consulting them at all. He insults many of the leaders of America’s closest friends including Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Emmanuel Macron of France etc. (Garfinkle, 2019).

According to Garfinkle’s arguments, “the main issue is that there is a harmful attitude, which shows in the radical de-funding of the state department, the general lack of both consultation and genuine negotiations with other governments with respect to everything but trade, and the basic freezing out of the secretary of state from most key foreign policy decisions. Its substitute for diplomacy much of the time is the application of intemperate language and sudden sanctions. But the real damage that has been done, which is already cumulatively quite serious”.

Turkey-US Relations: Involvement in Syria

In 2019, Turkey’s Operation of Peace Spring and gaining surface-to-air defense system (S-400) from Russia had brought bilateral tensions between US-Turkey relations raising questions about Turkey’s commitment to the United States, the NATO and vice versa. Turkey started to show signs of being closer towards Russia and Putin after the agreement of buying the S-400’s. The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had started to act more independently from the United States and developed closer ties with Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Turkey’s economy is highly dependent on maintaining a diversified global trade partnership with different countries as they cooperate with the United States, Russia and other neighboring countries to satisfy their security, economic and energy needs. However, keeping close ties with multiple countries who might at one point have conflicting interests may leave Turkey undecided on whose side to pick (Zanotti and Thomas, 2019).

Almost since the establishment of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), there has been an on-going tension between the republic of Turkey and the party to an extend that the Turkish government including the EU recognize it as a national threat and a terrorist organization. The tensions between the Turkish state and the PKK eroded during the 1980’s after a violent conflict occurred, killing tens of thousands of people. After the start of the Syrian civil war, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) seized control of territory in northeastern Syria which is bordering Turkey. Turkey, as well as most exports on the region believe that the YPG is associated with the PKK and are on close term even though the YPG claim that they are not directly linked with the PKK. With the YPG gaining control over northeastern Syria, Turkey felt threatened as the PKK could easily hide and attack Turkey easily. To deal with such a threat, Turkey conducted Operation Peace Spring, with the aim of pushing the YPG fighters at least 30 kilometers away from its borders and establishing a safe zone to be able to provide homes for the 3.5 million Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey.

The US involvement in Syria was based on two reasons, one being to defeat the Islamic State which had territorial control in some parts of Syria and the second reason was to protect the Syrian Kurds in the region. The Islamic State terrorist organization controls operations from Syria. The USA wanted to defeat this group through the use of force like air power to drive out the group and to end its territorial control. By doing so, the USA would have denied a safe haven from where the Islamic State can extract money from residents and at the same time avoid them to plot attacks on the west.

Events in Syria have fed US–Turkey tensions specifically regarding Kurdish-led militias which partnered with the United States against the Islamic State. In August 2014, the Islamic State tried to take control over a territory known as Kobani which is in a town on the Syrian-Turkish border under the PYD control. It was in its interests for USA to defend the city from falling in the hands of the Islamic State, so they defended the city through air strikes and airdrop of weapons to arm the YPG against the Islamic State. Turkey showed its concerns over such actions as it was not in the long-term security interests of Turkey that the PKK are armed as they are seen as a terrorist organization in the eyes of Turkey and some other states (Stein, 2017).

In October 2019, Turkey’s military entered northeastern Syria after President Trump ordered the withdrawal of US troops from Syria as he wanted to bring back his troops home and focus on starting to rebuild their own nation. Such a decision was not welcomed by the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and other medias, as they saw this announcement as irresponsible and would not work for the national interest of the USA. This is due to the fact that such a decision allowed Russians and Iranians to have power over Syria. The operation which Turkey conducted was called as Operation Peace Spring and its main aim was to defeat the PKK and any other terrorist organization that they come across like the Islamic State in order to create a safe zone for the return of the approximately 3.6 million Syrian refugees back to Syria (Zanotti and Thomas, 2019).

To analyze the relationship between the USA and Turkey in this period, we have to focus on what has been the US response to the operation. At first, Trump agreed with Turkey’s actions but then threatened it to destroy the country’s economy if it did not cooperate in terms with the USA. However, Turkey continued with the operation as it was not only supported by the supporters of president Tayyip Erdogan but also parts of the opposition together with many other Turks supported the military operation. Trump planned to impose sanctions such as doubling steel tariffs as well as sanctions on the Turkish defense and energy ministries.

Conclusion

The world order has been moving towards a multipolar environment day-by-day due to the decline of US primacy not only in some regions around the world but also from within itself. Growing polarization both in domestic and international politics may have affected the preeminence of the United States of America. In the domestic environment, unlike the cold war era where the democrats and the republicans were on the same page towards an external threat, they are more politically polarized in the sense that both parties have different ideas and policies which each want to implement. For the democrats, even though they are committed to the liberal international mentality the republicans are not in the same page as they wish to bring back the great power politics and try to enforce back the same amount of primacy they possessed; not that their supremacy has declined drastically.

In the international environment, the US’ number one priority has shifted from Russia towards China as they have been having higher percentages of yearly economic growth and Russia’s claim to challenge the global hegemony has declined. We have started to move in a more multipolar world order due to the decline of US supremacy as this started to result in giving more alternatives for middle powers to have options to decide on which side to pick. In the case of Turkey-US relations, we have already have been sensing signs of decline in the emphasis given to threaten relations with the USA. Rather than strengthening its ties with the USA, Turkey has become more independent and showed signs of leaning more towards the side of Russia thus putting its name in the everyday political debates and become more influences as they and other middle power countries start to become more realpolitik. However, middle powers like Canada still believe that the primacy of US and EU should continue.

After analyzing Trumps foreign policies and the events that lead to the weakening of the relations between Turkey and the USA, we can clearly see that the process of settling under agreed upon terms will not be an easy task for both parties to follow. The process of negotiation also starts to fall short and become blurry with the involvement of non-state actors like the YPG, PKK and the Islamic state. It is in most people’s view that the operation from Turkeys perspective is verified and in good conditions to be applied as they would be solving two problems at once; pushing away the groups they recognize as terrorists and at the same time create a 30 kilometers safe zone for the excess about of Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey. On the other hand, things start to get complicated with US’s support to the YPG which is considered by many to be an extension of the PKK. It should also be put in light that the military of Turkey is currently in war with terrorist organizations as which every nation should be and they are in no way in intentions of hurting an armed, peaceful civilians.

References

1. Blackwill, D. R., (2019). Trump’s Foreign Policies Are Better than They Seem. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/CSR%2084_Blackwill_Trump.pdf
2. Gardinle, A. (2019). The Real Problem with the Trump Foreign Policy. RSIS Commentary 179/2019. Retrieved from https://www.fpri.org/article/2019/09/the-real-problem-with-the-trump-foreign-policy/
3. Stein, A. (2017, February). Re: Reconciling U.S.- Turkish Interests in Northern Syria [Online discussion paper]. Retrieved from https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2017/02/Discussion_Paper_Stein_Syria_Turkey_OR.pdf
4. Zanotti, J., & Thomas, C. (2019). Turkey: Background, U.S. Relations, and Sanctions in Brief. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R44000.pdf

Abstract

The year 2018 marks the 20th anniversary of a formal declaration of friendship and partnership between Russia and Kazakhstan. In this context, this paper analyses the relations between the two largest states in the former USSR, Russia and Kazakhstan during the years from 1991 to present with an emphasis on Russian Foreign policy and interests. The focus is on relations as seen in the huge intensity of bilateral meetings and agreements in the Putin era. The paper also provides a brief discussion of the relations in the Yelstin period. Various aspects of relations including military, economic, political, cultural and security dimensions are discussed.

Introduction

In the very early years after the decline of the USSR, Russia was not much interested in Central Asia. This neglect also extended to Kazakhstan. This was mostly due to its lack of capacity to deal with the new states. Russia’s economic relations with Central Asia declined. Its trade fell drastically and investments remained close to zero. However, Russia remained the largest trading partner to the Central Asian states. Trade with the United States, Turkey, Iran and the European Union increased throughout the 1990s.

In the present time, the role of Russia – Kazakhstan relations has been increasing as a priority of the Russian foreign policy. Russia maintained mostly stable political and diplomatic relations with Kazakhstan throughout both Yeltsin’s and Putin’s period. Only the initial period of Russia could be termed as a period of political confrontation. However, in all the years following, both countries held political relations as very stable.

1. Relations during Yelstin’s period

According to Yelena Nikolayevna Zabortsev, during Yeltsin’s period relations were considerably influenced by the following Russian interests in Kazakhstan:

• Nuclear issues
• Space agreements
• Border issues
• Military agreements (post-Soviet arsenal)
• Russian Diaspora issues
• Oil agreements (Caspian issue, and transit of Kazakhstan’s oil)
• Issues of economic cooperation

National security is a very complex notion. However, for Russia during that period with regards to Kazakhstan it was mostly related to military-related interests. Despite the absence of mutual agreements, Russia had been moving ex-Soviet military arsenal from Kazakhstan to Russia urgently.

Once the above national security issues were resolved, an enhanced positive stage in political relations started between the two nations. Starting from 1995 other aspects, rather than the military-related, had been changing the agenda of relations between the countries, and problematic issues were mostly not reflected in official political relations.

The new Russian foreign policy to Kazakhstan was changed due to geopolitical aspects, related to the Caspian Sea region. Another issue was related to the questions of economic cooperation.

In 1998, the two countries signed a Declaration on Eternal Friendship and Alliance. According to Russian experts, this new stage in the bilateral relations arose from the Russian political class who wanted to compensate heavy loss of regional influence in the 1990s.

Some political authorities considered the issue of border division as not favourable to Russia. While Russia never initiated the reconsideration of the border division, such claims put the border issue on the important agenda of Kazakhstan.

Foreign Transnational corporations had shifted Russian presence in the oil area. In addition, Russian business circles were discouraged with the Kazakhstan’s privatization, which limited Russian capital investment in the Republic’s economy.

In general, Russian foreign policy did not set the tone for bilateral relations as a whole during Yeltsin’s presidency. Kazakhstan’s policy had a critical impact on bilateral relations during that period. In particular, in 1995-1998, Kazakhstan has intensified relations with the US, and this negatively influenced bilateral relations.

The initial Russian political disagreement from Central Asia occurred for various reasons. This included internal restucturization along with domestic rivalries. It was also based in the ideology of the newly formed Federation. Yeltsin’s government had to assure Russian population that the collapse of the USSR was necessary. New national approach at that time focused on Russia itself. In this context, Central Asia was considered as a burden, without which Russia would proceed more effectively.

2. Relations during Putin’s period

The second stage in Russian- Kazakhstan relations brought significant changes. This was due to the enhanced emphasis by Russia to cooperate with the CIS.

Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy approach towards the CIS countries is basically driven by a single objective: to re-establish Russian control over geographical areas where it originally established the Tsarist Empire in the much-contested and turbulent Caucasus region.

Putin had paid greater attention to Central Asia even as a Prime Minister in 1999. Anti-terrorism brought a new dimension to Russian foreign policy towards Central Asia, something that previously had been lacking. Putin sought to use the ‘policy vacuum’ to deal with Islamic incursions and thus moved anti-terrorism to the top of the Russian agenda. The 1999 terrorist incursions in Kyrgyzstan also allowed Russia to bring ‘international terrorism’ as the major threat. This also helped Russia to establish an ‘anti-criminal coalition’ with Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Belarus.

After the first months of Putin’s election, three key doctrinal documents were adopted defining future Russian foreign and security policy. These include:

• The National Security Concept (10 January 2000)
• The Military Doctrine (21 April 2000)
• The Foreign Policy Concept (28 June 2000).

From Russian Federation Foreign Policy Concept 2000:

“A priority area in Russia’s foreign policy is ensuring conformity of multilateral and bilateral cooperation with the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to national security tasks of the country. Proceeding from the concept of different-speed and different-level integration within the CIS framework, Russia will determine the parameters and character of its interaction with CIS member states both in the CIS as a whole and in narrower associations, primarily the Customs Union and the Collective Security Treaty”.

Russia has been regaining its economic power. This has shifted emphasis on economic cooperation and geopolitical interests into the key state priorities in relations with Kazakhstan under Putin’s presidency. Russia has also been putting emphasis on keeping strong political relations with Kazakhstan.

3. Defence and security relations

It was decided to remove all nuclear weapons were from Kazakhstan by the mid-1990s. This was one of the non contested issues in the Russia–Kazakhstan relationship. When Russia signed agreements for further leasing of defence facilities in 1997, it was Kazakhstan which was Russia’s most reliable partner in the region.

With the beginning of the second Chechnya war in fall 1999, Kazakhstan was eager to help Russia and thus established additional border checkpoints at ports and railway stations and suspended ferry traffic with Azerbaijan to control Chechen refugees.

The relationship was thus both stable and good-natured when Putin entered the Kremlin and there were no sour ‘left-overs’ in the relationship. At a summit in June 2000, Putin characterized the relationship as ‘progressively developing at a very high level’ in both the political and economic sphere.

The 9/11 attacks on the U.S. strengthened the harmonious Russian–Kazakhstan relationship. This was despite Kazakhstan’s decision to cooperate with the USA in combating international terrorism.

There was also intense military and defence cooperation in the relationship as Russia said that it would supply military hardware to replace that which Kazakhstan received after the collapse of the USSR. Russia and Kazakhstan established a commission on military technical cooperation in 2001.

Economic and trade cooperation

The core of the relationship under both Yeltsin and Putin was: Hydrocarbon production and transportation. In 2000, Kazakhstan opened up for exporting gas to Turkey via Russia. Also, Kazakhstan welcomed Gazprom for managing Kazakhstan’s gas distribution network. This led to a Russian–Kazakh joint venture in gas exploitation and transportation. Then in November 2001, both countries signed an agreement for development of gas deposits and for gas export.

In January 2006, it was announced that Russia would develop the Kurmangazy and Khvalynskoye oil and gas fields based on a shared basis. Then in winter 2006, it was decided to construct a joint Russian–Kazakh gas-processing plant in Russia. There were also discussions on nuclear energy cooperation. Here the general idea was for Russia to build a nuclear power station in Kazakhstan. This also led to a joint venture on uranium extraction.

Issues in bilateral relations

Border issue

Despite the generally good Russian–Kazakhstan relations, there have been a few minor problems in the relationship. One is the border issue. The two countries hold a common 7,000 km border which has never been demarcated. This has resulted in a constant flow of contraband and migrants. At a Russian Security Council session in March 2003, Russia’s border with Kazakhstan was considered to be the most problematic of all Russia’s borders. As a result, no crossings or demarcation lines had been constructed since 1993, mostly because of the costs involved.

Demarcation started in 1999, but Putin took the issue far more seriously than Yeltsin, and in April 2000 Russian troops were deployed to guard the border. After 11 September, the huge wave of refugees from Central Asia resulted in renewed calls for reinforcing the border, and Russia and Kazakhstan agreed to demarcate approximately half of their shared land border.

The Russian vacillation was reinforced by the Eurasian Economic Community’s agreement on visa-free travel which caused an increase in illegal migration from Central Asia via Kazakhstan into Russia. Nevertheless, delimitation of the border continued, and by September 2004 the Kazakh–Russian border delimitation had been finished to some 99 per cent. In January 2005, Putin and Nazarbaev finally signed a border delimitation agreement, which Putin called ‘a new stage in the strategic partnership’.

Issue of minorities

Another conflict issue that haunted the Russia–Kazakhstan relationship (especially in the first years of Putin’s reign) was the situation of the Russian minorities in Kazakhstan, which account for some 40 per cent of the country’s 15 million population.

In April 2000, 11 Russian citizens were accused of planning to establish an independent Russian republic in eastern Kazakhstan. In spring 2001, Russians in Kazakhstan created a new political party, the primary objective of which was to lobby for proportional representation for Russians in state and government bodies.

Tied to the discrimination issue was the issue of state language in Kazakhstan, and in February 2002 the Russian language was asked to be designated a state language in Kazakhstan, to no avail. In 2006, Nazarbaev also raised the issue of whether the Kazakh language should switch from the Cyrillic to the Latin script in the future.

Conclusion

Political relations between Russia and Kazakhstan have been very stable officially. After the collapse of the USSR, more than 500 bilateral agreements have been signed between the two states, along with regular meetings at the highest level. Still, there are a number of issues that need more cooperation.

Russia’s foreign policy initially was targeted towards defining its own independent role, and forging stronger relations with the West. As a result, Kazakhstan was not in the focus of Russia’s Foreign Policy. However, once Russia started re-gaining economic power, it led to changing of the scope and priorities of its strategic interests.

Russia’s long-term strategic goals are understood to be focused on the maximum integration of these states. The areas of integration sought include economy, security, and even adopting a single currency in the future. While such a full integration does not reflect Russian interests entirely, Russia has strong motivations to increase cooperation between the two countries.

Kazakhstan has also been an advocate of integration in the CIS sphere. This reflects a sign of its actual needs. This is because Kazakhstan is as much locked in by Russia and the Caspian Sea as any other Central Asian state. As a result, it needs transits for its energy production. Kazakhstan also desires Russian know-how to develop its huge underground energy resources. Both have recently signed very long-term agreements in the energy sector, and the two countries are likely to continue developing together. The support of the US forces in Afghanistan by Kazakhstan was not seen as ignoring concerns of Russian. Altogether, Kazakhstan is not likely to have done much without the consent of Putin and its behaviour after 11 September is a testimony of the same.

As was discussed before, the initial incoherent Russian policy affected general trends in bilateral relations. It also impacted the future developments of bilateral relations between the two. Russia has also lost some of its authority in the regional integration processes. Moreover, it is vital to highlight that Kazakhstan itself is on way to play a larger role in the regional integration trends.

As the charm of independence is over, the two countries have been in the process of re-shaping their strategic aims to cooperate with each other. As a result, the agenda of partnership coexist along with an enhanced competition. This has complicated the processes of multilateral regionalism, but has not created hindrance on achieving a successful cooperation on a narrow bilateral level.

References:

1. Bertil Nygren, “The Rebuilding of Greater Russia: Putin’s foreign policy towards the CIS countries”
2. Andrei Kozyrev, “New Russia in the New World”, Izvestiyia, February, 2, 1992.
3. Yelena Nikolayevna Zabortseva, “Transformation of Russia-Kazakhstan Post-Soviet Political Relations: from Chaos to Integration?
4. Almaz Kumenov, “Kazakhstan, Russia celebrate 20 years of friendship despite the cracks”
5. Casey Michel,” Russia-Kazakhstan Relations Took a Dive in 2014”
6. Askar Nursa, “Putin’s Russia: Geopolitical Revenge or Aggressive Defense?”
7. Stephen Blank, “As Kazakhstan asserts its independence, how will Russia react?”

The understanding of Nigerian foreign policy cannot be achieved through the application of one and only theoretical perspective. As a matter of fact, its formulation depends on multiple factors and it is influenced both by the international and the state level. Consequently, it is appropriate to distinguish selected elements and compare how different IR theories understand them. In this paper, there will be a critical juxtaposition between the liberal and neoclassical realist understandings of the active engagement of Nigeria in regional and continental organizations, with particular attention to the military and economic fields. Then, there will be a comparison between the constructivist and Marxist explanation of the attempt of Nigerian leadership to improve its image abroad.

Apparently, the engagement with institutions fits with the weak liberal interdependence theory and the neoliberal paradigm, whose approach is system-based. As a matter of fact, Nigeria actively sponsored and supported the institution of ECOWAS in the 1970s, when West Africa was plagued by political instability and mutual distrust (Babatunde Amao and Okeke-Uzodike, 2015).

Since the primary objective of ECOWAS was the economic integration between member States (ECOWAS, The Treaty), one of its very first outcomes was the construction of mutual economic interdependence between the different national economies. Coherently with the weak interdependence theory, the trade interdependence made the perspective of conflict supremely expensive, since it was confronted with the mutual gain guaranteed by economic cooperation (Beach, 2019). In this case, the liberal paradigm would spotlight that the newly created international economic interdependence allowed Abuja to secure the development of its economy, and to aspire becoming an industrial powerhouse in the region of Western Africa (J.B.Olatunde, 1980).

However, liberal paradigms fail to explain the recent protectionist turns of Nigerian economic foreign policy, particularly noticeable in the delayed signature of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement – AfCFTA (Vanguard, 2018). In this matter, the neoclassical realist perspective demonstrates a greater explanatory power for its emphasis on the role of domestic factors in the formulation of foreign policy (Beach, 2019). In the case of the AfCFTA, the widespread poverty, the pervasive corruption (Transparency International, 2018) and the low Human Development Index (UNDP, 2018) probably contributed to the Nigerian wavering about the African Continental Free Trade Agreement, whose ratification was first guaranteed, then disavowed, and finally approved with some considerable limitations (Vanguard, 2018; Quartz, 2019).

Focusing on the field of political cooperation, it seems that the neoliberal paradigm is able to fully understand and explain the institution of ECOWAS. As a matter of fact, it claims that reiterated interactions between States within an institutional framework contributed to alleviate the security dilemma in Western Africa: the institution of ECOWAS contributed to creating common and stable expectations about peace between neighbors (Nye and Welch). Again, Abuja has been pushing for a gradual deepening of the cooperation between the ECOWAS member States, that came to include political, security and cultural issues (Omo-Ogbebor, 2017). At this way, Nigerian foreign policy contributed to secure the political stability in the region, at the same time guaranteeing its own national security against attacks from neighbor countries.

However, it is precisely on the pattern of expansion of the ECOWAS competences to the military field that the explanatory power of liberal paradigms fails. As a matter of fact, Abuja has been pursuing a foreign policy centered on the military application of the leadership’s belief about the irreplaceable role of Nigeria in the African continent (Osaherumwe Idahosa and Adebayo, 2017). Thus, it is appropriate to adopt again a neoclassical realist perspective, that is based on a State-level approach to understanding how domestic factors may contribute to the definition of national foreign policy (Beach, 2019). As a matter of fact, the debate of the political elite on Nigeria’s prominent role in the African continent crafted a foreign policy that implied a noticeable military engagement abroad. For instance, Nigeria actively promoted and led peacekeeping initiatives in neighboring states, like Liberia and Sierra Leone, and it was basically the sole funder of them (Kolapo, 2014). Such an outward commitment strained the public finances, already stressed by a mix of poor governance and lack of transparency (Bach, 2007).

The magnitude of economic issues, societal problems and security challenges tarnished the public image of Nigeria abroad. As a result, the two last Nigerian presidents, Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, engaged in domestic structural reforms, but they also asked for international help and foreign aid to implement their efforts (Lysa, Terfa and Tsegyu, 2015).

The attempt to improve the public image and perception of Nigeria can be read like a foreign policy strategy to improve the country’s status in international politics. At these regards, the two theoretical perspectives of constructivism and Marxist international political economy enter into a conflict while understanding and explaining it.

As far as constructivism is concerned, the emphasis placed by Nigeria on its external image is a confirmation of its importance in foreign policy. As Wendt (1992) puts it, international politics is a politics of identities, that are being constructed by re-iterated interactions between states. It is possible to argue that the national image is the external representation of national identity, and it at the same way subject to a process of social construction constituted by the relations with other states (Adegoju, 2016). In the case of Nigeria, its recent public image has been socially characterized by denigrating associations, like the linkage between the Nigerian population and criminal groups (Lysa, Terfa and Tsegyu, 2015). As a study conducted by Lysa, Terfa and Tsegyu (2015) has demonstrated, the re-formulation of public image in a positive sense could support the formulation of a foreign policy able to serve effectively the well-being of Nigerian people through the achievement of a larger quantity of foreign aid and wider international cooperation.

From the point of view of the Marxist strand of IPE, constructivism fails to consider the wider impact of foreign aid on Nigeria. As a matter of fact, foreign aid is seen as a tool of modern imperialism (Richards, 1977). Indeed, its pre-ordained definition of development and relative political requirements represent a way to internationalize further capital and capitalism (Richards, 1977). As a consequence, foreign aid is an instrument to endure the structural dependence that prevents the development of peripheral, developing economies in favor to the interests of the capitalistic, developed economies (Nye and Welch, 2011). Thus, the Nigerian quest for greater financial fluxes is a demonstration of its dependence on the international capitalistic system.

Overall, it is clear that none of the theoretical perspectives can offer a definitive understanding and explanation of the selected elements. However, each of them provides valuable insight into Nigerian foreign policy. As long as the membership in regional institutions is concerned, the liberal paradigm explains the importance of economic and political space of interdependence, while neoclassical realism highlights the impact of domestic factors in formulating the foreign policy. In the case of the attempt to improve the public image of the country, constructivism explains the importance of positive external perception, while Marxism ponders the origin and outcome of quest for a greater quantity of financial flows.

Although the United States (US) has always had a Foreign Policy, for decades the US has emplaced polices regarding Mexico and it’s rogue and hostile drug cartels. Furthermore, since the 1920s, the United States and Mexico has had raised tension, not only for oil, politics, immigration, but drug trafficking, leading to the rise of drug cartels. The United States Foreign Policies are in place to safeguard its national interests from threats such as these.

For more than a decade, Mexican authorities have been waging war against drug trafficking organizations (Gamboa). The war on drug cartels is an ever changing due to them battling one another for territory, either leading to them splintering, or forging alliances. During this time, over three hundred thousand homicides (Gamboa) have been in response to antidrug campaigns of the Mexican government. Many of these homicides are linked to drug cartels, which hit a new high of almost thirty-six thousand deaths, with a trend of around ninety murders daily.

Drug cartels, also known as Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), are the largest foreign suppliers of heroin, methamphetamine (meth), and cocaine to the United States. Furthermore, they are also responsible for most of the heroin and meth production, while the cocaine is made Columbia and Peru and then transported through Mexico. In recent years, US seizures have shown DTOs are manufacturing a synthetic opioid called fentanyl, that is more potent than heroin and the numbers of seizures is soaring at an alarming rate. A vast quantity of marijuana is produced and smuggled into the United States, but legalization in Canada and the majority of US states has led to DTOs pushing harder drugs, such as heroin.

The demand for heroin has caused the US Opioid Epidemic, increasing heroin production in Mexico by 37%, from 2016 to 2017 (White House). Opioids, a class of drugs derived from the poppy plant, can be divided into two broad categories: approved FDA medications and manufactured drugs. Opioid medications, including oxycodone, hydrocodone, and morphine, are commonly prescribed to treat pain, while methadone is primarily used in addiction treatment centers to reduce a patient’s addiction to opioids.

The crisis has reached such a point that, beyond the risks it poses to public health, it is hurting the economy and is a threat to national security. Cartels control production and operating distribution hubs in major US cities. Mexican cartels, which the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has called the “greatest criminal drug threat to the United States,” (Editors) transport drugs across the US southwest border. The two countries share a two thousand mile border with over fifty active ports of entry.

U.S. relations with Mexico are strong and vital. However, the scope of US and Mexican relations is broad and goes beyond diplomatic and official relations. It encompasses extensive commercial, cultural, and educational ties, with some 1.7 billion dollars of two-way trade and hundreds of thousands of legal border crossings each day. Bilateral relations between the two have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans.

Furthermore, the demand for narcotics remains strong, and according to the U.S. Department of Justice, ‘the availability of illicit drugs in the United States is increasing” (Engelhart). Drug cartels are constantly fighting for power, especially along the Mexico, US border, like places such as Juarez, Mexico. The Mexican authorities are trying to stop them with no avail. The push for power by cartels has landed them into the US itself. Authorities have reported they are on a move through El Paso, heading North, East, and West. Raids by authorities have uncovered cartel factions in Atlanta, Phoenix, New York, and a presence in 230 U.S. cities (up from 50 in 2006), from Little Rock, Ark., to Anchorage, Alaska (Engelhart).

According to an August 2011 Pew poll, less than half of Mexicans believe that the government is making progress in its battle against the cartels (Bonner). Some Mexicans believe that the president is allowing the cartels to operate above the law in exchange for less violence from the cartels. When President Calderón took office in 2006, there were 5 cartels cells, each fighting for power and control. These DTOs, the Gulf, the Juárez, La Familia Michoacana, the Sinaloa, and the Tijuana cartels — dominated large swaths of Mexican territory and operated abroad, as well (Bonner).

The war on drug cartels is an ever changing. Battling one another for territory, either splintering, or forged alliances. Formally led by the infamously known drug cartel Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the Sinaloa Cartel is Mexico’s most powerful and oldest DTOs. They own strongholds along the Pacific Coast of Mexico, allowing them to have a larger international footprint. During a battle for territory, Jalisco New Generation splintered from the Sinaloa Cartel in 2010, who are known for their willingness and aggressive confrontations with other cartels and with the Mexican Authorities.

Headlines from Mexico are worrying, from US officials being killed, Ranchers being murdered by drug smugglers crossing the border, and numerous lethal engagements between the Mexican authorities and the cartels. Mexico is in the throes of a battle against powerful drug cartels, the outcome of which will determine who controls the country’s law enforcement, judicial, and political institutions. It will decide whether the state will destroy the cartels and put an end to the culture of impunity they have created (Bonner).

Mexico’s drug cartels are moving into the gasoline industry and waging open war with the military. Can the country’s new populist president contain the chaos (Harp)? As stated prior, the war on drugs is ever changing, and even oil is a major asset for the cartels. They are using brute force on the small oil companies to take over the business of distribution of gas to those even if they want it or not. The armed conflict between the cartels and Mexico’s military, which has dragged on for 12 years, now ranks as the deadliest war in the world apart from Syria (Harp). Mexico’s military has stated they will continue to hunt down and take out each cartel one by one, even working with the US government such as the DEA and CIA. While most of Mexico’s stolen gasoline is sold domestically, plenty of it winds up in the U.S., especially when the variable price of fuel on the world market rises above the fixed price in Mexico (Harp). One of the largest oil companies Pemex even filed a lawsuit in 2010 in the US federal court accusing dozens of Texas companies of purchasing stolen gasoline.

This policy paper will discuss US foreign policy regarding drug cartels in Mexico and the United States starting from 1920s through the present day, with emphasis on how the cartels have come to power and become a threat to national security in the United States. It will also discuss the rampage the cartels are on for a struggle for power against other cartel factions and the Mexican government. Furthermore, how the Mexican government has worked with the US to control and eradicate the threat of cartel violence. For some time the threat of Mexican authorities not controlling their own country has forced the United States to once again help another country with its own problems due to the threat of it affecting the way of life we as Americans love and fight for.

A lot of Americans will guarantee that no additions could pay the value of what we paid with the outcome of the Iraq War. Because there were lost lives and untold several billions of dollars. Yet, we paid a far more significant expense in the Korean War with up to 36,000 dead. Maybe a couple would have thought in 1953 that this war, which finished with a halted and assaulted landmass, was a furious achievement. The result looks impressively better about six decades later since South Korea has turned out to be one of the most prosperous and freest nations on the planet. Back to the point, was the Iraq War justified, despite all the trouble? I don’t have a clue. However, in this essay, I will share my thoughts on this matter.

The costs have been colossal. Some were unavoidable. Some were the limit of poor course of action and a poor starting to the movement and occupation. I submitted blunders in my Iraq examination during the time occasionally, anyway, one thing I obviously got right was to alert from 2001 ahead that any war would be amazingly problematic and testing as in 2001. Americans foreseen. Since the war is legitimately completed and for the most part U.S. forces have pulled back, what activities should Americans just from that draw from the experience? Another activity from Iraq and Afghanistan is that local characters stay entirely amazing, and remote occupations regularly trigger hindrance, especially in social orders with a foundation set apart by massive outside impedance. Fittingly, including powers are likely going to confront prepared uprisings, which subsequently means organizing a counterinsurgency campaign. Appallingly, such campaigns are incredibly hard to control, in light of the way that unequivocal triumphs will be precarious, progress is normally moderate, and the occupation power will have perceiving partners from adversaries inside the local masses. Additionally, that suggests that once in a while our forces will go over the line, as they did in Haditha or Abu Ghraib. Despite the sum we emphasize ‘hearts and cerebrums’, abuses will undermine our undertakings. So, when you solicitation up an interruption or include another country, realize that you are opening Pandora’s Box.

The United States lost, we lost a lot. The first and most dominant exercise of the term we didn’t win. The alleged inspiration driving the war was taking out Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, anyway, it turns out he didn’t have any. Oh, goodness. By then the explanation moved to make a virtuoso American well-known government, yet Iraq today is, most ideal situation a semi larger part runs framework and far from expert American. The destruction of Iraq improved Iran’s circumstance in the Persian Gulf, which isn’t generally something the United States arranged, and the costs of the war, successfully outperforming 1 trillion dollars, are significantly greater than U.S. pioneers anticipated or ensured. The war was in like manner a mammoth interference, which involved the Bush association from various needs Afghanistan and made the United States impressively less predominant around the world.

The American eagle has landed in the Philippines. In the first days, we were not sure if we were there to liberate or occupy the Filipino people. At first, it was considered liberation. The Philippines had been a Spanish colony for numerous centuries. The Americans chased out the Spanish, and the future was regarded as clear. The chief of the Filipino revolutionaries, Emilio Aguinaldo, used to be geared up to march into the Philippine capital with us and declare Filipino independence. But it didn’t happen. Now we have to stay. Should this have happened? Are we doing the proper element by using a way of annexing this island country? The answer, my fellow Senators, is a robust ‘Yes.’ There are three large reasons: the Filipinos are no longer organized for self-government, the Filipinos would be devoured by some different country, and it is God’s design.

The first reason the United States used to be proper to annex the Philippines is that the Filipinos are no longer successful in self-rule. Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana argues the issue well. Yes, he says, authorities must be by using the use of the consent of the governed, alternatively solely when the human beings are mature sufficient to govern themselves. He noted we govern our youngsters without their consent. Like formative years the Filipinos prefer our safety (Doc B). President William McKinley made a comparable point. If the United Štates left the Philippines to themselves the result would be ‘anarchy and misrule’ (Doc C). McKinley noted it was our duty to instruct and civilize the Philippine people. Beveridge and McKinley have been right. The Philippines needed increased time. After all, the American colonies had been governed with the aid of skill of the British for a hundred and fifty years until now when they had been geared up for independence.

The 2nd purpose of annexing the Philippines was that colonizing international locations like England, France, and Germany were ready to pounce if the United States decided to leave. Gentlemen, McKinley used to be right when he said that it would be foolish to turn the Philippines over to our exchange opponents in Asia (Doc C). Senator Beveridge also mentions that Japan used to be ‘hungering’ for the islands (Doc B). If the Philippines had been no longer outfitted to govern themselves, it would have been unwise to let them fall into the fingers of a US that would deal with them badly. You do not turn your young humans over to the wolves.

Finally, we have been right to maintain the Philippines because it is God’s plan. Providence wishes America to grow. First it was once once Louisiana, then Oregon, then California. This growth endured with Alaska and then Hawaii. Now it is the Philippines. Is there a higher religion than Christianity? Is there a greater authority than democracy? It was our show-up future to take the Philippines, and like the cartoon, put it beneath our wing. (Hook) In Beveridge’s simple words, ‘Wonderfully has God guided us!’ (Doc B) America ought to by no means say ‘No’ to God.

In conclusion, in all challenging matters, there are arguments for annexing the Philippines. The American Anti-Imperialist League used be right to be unhappy about the loss of lifestyles of so many soldiers, both American and Filipino (Doc A). William Jennings Bryan was once right to say that the Bible no longer approves of weapons and struggle (Doc D) But incredible motives are now not acquired except for paying a price. We found that at Valley Forge and Gettysburg. With God on our side, and the future of the islands in our hearts, America is doing the ideal element by way of annexing the Philippines.