Peace in Islam and International Relations

Introduction

It is important to note that Islam is one of the three Abrahamic religions, which builds its system of beliefs on the faith of monotheism. The Holy Quran is the sacred text from which the majority of teachings and core concepts are derived. The key figure is the Prophet Muhammad, who is believed to be the last messenger of Allah. Unlike Christianity, Islam believes that Jesus Christ was not a divine being but rather a prophet as many others, including Muhammad. Due to the tensions in international politics of the early 2000s, Islam acquired a bad reputation due to some extremist groups emerging from the Islamic faith. Although they are not representative of the entire religion, the latter was affected as a whole and questioned on its adherence to peace. The notion that Islam upholds fierceness contradicts Islamic cultures ethical teaching, which emphasizes unity and peacemaking, or al-ishla (Nursita and Sahide). The tense relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim nations has contributed to the perception of Islam as a violent faith, which is far from the truth. Due to the battles in the Middle East, Karen Armstrong, a scholar, backed the concept that Islam teaches violence as a religion. Despite poor media coverage and loudness of a few Islamic radicals, Islam itself is not a violent religion because Quran outlines three levels of conceptualized peace, which include as-silmu, as-shulhu, and al-amanu.

New Ideas from the Text

According to Islamic beliefs, Islam means salvation and encourages peace, unity, and submission. Islam comes from the Arabic term as-salaamu, which means safe or saved. Phrases like shaalaha, which means reconcile, while as-shulhu means peace. Islam religion supports both positive and negative values when it teaches peace (Nursita and Sahide). Cooperation, equality, a peaceful culture, and inter-society dialogue are all examples of positive values. New ideas emerge when Islamic culture promotes peace while the electronic media, periodicals, literature, and written texts support the stereotype.

The reading of the text reveals that Islam promotes social harmony and peacemaking nationally. Internationally, Islamic teaching encourages peace, unity, and mutual respect among various populations. The virtue of making peace prevails in the Quran and hadith. According to multiple scriptures, Allah loves those who perform justly, such as al- Hujurat, who demonstrates justice in the scripture. Al-Hujurat chapter 49:9 mentions amending what is between you and Allahs messengers to enhance peace (Nursita and Sahide). Words like al-amaanu, which means serenity, protection, and calm, are used in Islam to create security. The state has a mission to preserve safety for human survival in Prophet Ibrahims prayer in the Quran. The wisdom verses and lessons in the Al-Quran instruct individuals on making peace and maintaining security among themselves. Internationally, Islam fosters peace, honesty, unity, safety, and goodness. The Islamic teaching portrays virtues that make people come together, live well with joy, have a better understanding among themselves, and solve issues together.

Islam religion promotes peace in that Mohammed reconciled Muharijin and Ansar as a show of love among them as a symbol of unity in Islam teachings. It indicates conciliation and peacemaking efforts to solve the conflict in groups in society (Nursita and Sahide). There are words in the Islam teachings like as-shulhu meaning peace, al-ishlah meaning reconciliation or reformation, which divine rules promote peace in the religion. Islam religion mainly enhances peacemaking reconciliation and promotes unity among the community groups. It balances human nature on the ways of survival and living. It advocates that humans in nature do good deeds to create both positive and negative peace (Nursita and Sahide). A Muslim incorporates Islamic values in social, economic, and political life to bring mutual respect, cooperation, unity, tolerance, justice, and protect human rights (Nursita and Sahide). Islam culture creates peace to prevent and solve conflicts within the society. Religion brings better understanding among the people, which ensures people live with unity and peace.

New Words

Islam, which signifies salvation, submission, or peace, as-silmu, as-shulhu, and al-amaanu, which represents a concept of peace in Islam, are among the new vocabulary items in the reading text. Peace is as-shulhu, while reconciliation or change is al-ishlah. The phrases in Islams teaching imply that all Muslim believers must act nicely toward others and act as an example to other groups. Most Beneficent is Ar-Rahman, whereas Most Merciful is Al-Raheem are some of the new vocabularies in the text. The other words are as-shulh, which means building peace to prevent and resolve conflict (Nursita and Sahide). Al-amaanu means peace obtained by preserving or providing security, or peace that cannot be achieved by a single person but rather by vast groups of people, society, or the state. In Islamic teachings and culture, akhlaq refers to morality and uprightness. Wasathiyah is a man capable of comprehending, standing, and defending reality. In Islam, one needs to understand religious doctrines and protect them according to divine laws. Muslims focus more on their religion, believe in it, and follow the set guidelines according to doctrines.

Conclusion

Lastly, I would prefer the readers of the text to be aware that Islam promotes peacemaking, unity, and protection of all individuals human rights in society. It is a religion that enhances equality and cooperation and solves conflicts. The Islamic teachings endorse virtues that bring wellness and moral support to the organization, and the religious oppose any violence that attributes to conflict or disagreement in the society. It upholds and practices righteousness, honesty, and justice in the community. Islam opposes violence or wars and promotes peace within international relations. The teachings from the religion encourage individuals to continue doing good deeds and show love to all people. Islam encourages believers to have a perfect political, social, and economic life to bring peace to society. The believers also become equitable, compassionate, and loving to each other to show unity and caring.

The fact is that electronic media, famous newspapers, and other sources of information attribute Islam as a religion of violence, and my view opposes this stereotype. I understand Islam as a Godly religion that practices all virtues that bring people together and promote harmony. The various Quran quotes and verses indicate denial of evil and admit good deeds among the individuals. The Quran opposes violence rebukes terrorism, conflicts, and injustice in the religion. It protects peace, unity, and respect within the society. In the Quran, various stories show multiple individuals and groups who have demonstrated reconciliation that brings peace and love. Islamic law, both Al-Quran and Sunnah bring an attitude that leads people to accept peace among themselves. It directs Muslim believers to obey the faith of other religions. The faith leaders cooperate in goodness, solve disputes, and behave well towards their followers, and Islam would support equality, cooperation, unity, and justice internationally. It brings peace, prevents wars or conflicts, and ensures all stay well with harmony within their localities. The Muslims enjoy their religion to protect their rights and bring unity to their culture.

Work cited

Nursita, Rizki Dian, and Ahmad Sahide. The Concept of Peace in Islam and Its Relevance to International Relations. Al-Albab, vol 8, no. 2, 2019, pp. 211-224. IAIN Pontianak.

The Arab Spring and American Response to It

Introduction

The Arab Spring, which started in 2010 and affected the countries of the Arabian world, was a major political event that drew the attention of the entire planet. In our paper, we will look into issues that were to be considered in the process of forming a political reaction of the USA to this situation, and think over factors which might possibly justify a military intervention in such circumstances.

Factors to be considered while formulating a foreign policy response to the Arab Spring

President Obama once stated that there were a number of factors to be taken into account while formulating the American foreign policy towards the Arab Spring (as cited in Keiswetter, 2012, para. 16). These factors are: countering possible terrorism and the threat of production of nuclear weapons; making certain that the peace is upheld in the region; defending Israels safety and promoting peace between this country and the Arabic world; and supporting the possibility of international trade.

The President also stressed the importance of such issues as standing up against violence and repressions towards people; advocating universal human rights, such as non-discrimination, gender equality, and freedom of speech; supporting peoples right to choose authorities; and promoting political and economical reforms that would satisfy the needs of people.

It is important to point out that, while the first set of issues is directly related to the safety of the United States (and many other countries), the second one is of essence not only for local people from the social point of view, but for the USA from the economic perspective, for, as Keiswetter (2012) observes, democratic countries usually prove to be much more reliable partners (para. 1).

It is stated that the leverage of the U.S. in the region was limited; therefore, it was at most possible to stand for the democratic elements which caused the Arab Spring by establishing non-government organizations which would provide humanitarian help, medical support and education for the local population (United States security interests, 2012, p. 52).

On the other hand, we would like to note that promoting tough international economic and political sanctions against the governments which used or threatened to use violence and aggression was also a possibility, because the more countries of the world would have been involved in such sanctions, the less opportunities for these government would have been present.

Conditions to be present to support military intervention

In our opinion, only the most crucial and threatening conditions could justify a military intervention. These conditions include a possible full-scale war, production of nuclear weapons by governments that are probable to use it, and a real threat of terrorism. In other words, the only acceptable excuse for hostilities is a certainty that these hostilities will eventually result in death of a smaller number of people than any other means will. It is our belief that economic considerations cannot justify military intervention.

Of course, this plain principle is, in fact, very difficult to realize, for usually it is impossible to unequivocally estimate all the possible outcomes not only due to the lack of information, but also because a simple chance can lead to unpredictable results in both cases.

As Peters (2007) points out, the peace in modern world is perhaps a fragile phenomenon if we take into account e.g. the abundance of various weapons (including chemical, biological, and nuclear) and the willingness of some countries to use them (The Environment of Defense Policy section, para. 7). Therefore, such crucial decisions should only be made after assessing all the implications, including the possibility of the intervention causing a full-scale war.

Conclusion

Therefore, while choosing a political response to the Arabic Spring, it was important to consider the factors that could lead to the disturbance of international peace, as well as those ones that would lead to exacerbation of social and political situation in the region. Both types of factors are of direct concern to the USA. However, the reply to such events should be careful; the usage of military force is only rarely justified and can always lead to unpredictable results.

References

Keiswetter, A. L. (2012). The Arab Spring: Implications for US policy and interests.

Peters, B. G. (2007). Chapter 14: Protective policies: Defense and law enforcement. In Peters, B. G., American public policy: Promise and performance (7th ed.) (n.pag.). [APUS Library version].

United States security interests, the Arab Spring, and Iran. (2012). American Foreign Policy Interests, 34(1), 52-53. doi:10.1080/10803920.2012.653722

Brexit Effects on the UK and International Relations

Introduction

On 23 June 2016, the British came out in large numbers to vote for a referendum that marked the turning point for their relationship with other European Union (EU) member countries. The majority of the people voted in favor of leaving the EU. It was not the first time that Britain had expressed its desire to leave the union (Goodwin and Heath 325). In 1975, the country conducted a similar referendum, where most people were against leaving the union. The United Kingdom (UK) has had a troubled relationship with the EU member states for over four decades (Goodwin and Heath 329). Thus, it hoped that the referendum would bring these challenges to an end. Currently, withdrawal negotiations are underway between Britain and the EU member countries. Nevertheless, it is clear that the rapport between Britain and the EU has taken a new and vague direction. The UK is currently experiencing economic, social, and political upsets that are bound to affect the entire EU and the world at large. The referendum did not only impact the relationship between the EU and Britain but also resulted in the divided UK. This article will discuss the aftermath of Brexit.

The Divided UK

The majority of the countries forming the UK were against leaving the EU. Scotland voted overwhelmingly against the exit plan. Additionally, Northern Ireland and London were in favor of remaining in the EU. A large part of England expressed displeasure with its relationship with the EU and supported the decision to leave the union. Wales also endorsed the leave camp. The lack of unity amid various regions makes it hard to envisage the future of the UK. One wonders if countries such as Scotland will one day demand to split from the UK. The country has threatened to conduct an independence referendum, which would enable it to rejoin the EU. It is hard to understand the position of Northern Ireland as the state did not vote together with the other parts of England. There are speculations that Northern Ireland might decide to leave the UK and enter into a partnership with the Republic of Ireland. The call by First Minister Martin McGuiness for the establishment of a United Ireland, which came days after Brexit outcomes, was a precursor of uncertain future between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The rift is not apparent only across the regions but also within England. There exist disagreements between London and other parts of England. According to Aristeidis and Elias, there is a wide gap between London and the de-industrialized and rural parts of the country (265). While London voted massively (60%) to remain in the EU, the other regions were in support of leaving. It is not clear whether the political class will manage to rule a divided nation. Additionally, there are divisions amid the political class as not all of them are in favor of either staying or leaving the EU. Both the Labor and Conservative parties have members of parliament who are in support of or against Brexit.

Economic Effects

Economic concerns formed one of the primary subjects of the Brexit debate. Parties opposed to Brexit, such as the UK treasury, claimed that the move would affect the countrys economic growth. Conversely, proponents of Brexit argued that it would help to minimize the countrys net contribution to the union, hence boosting government spending in the UK. A day after the referendum, the government issued a statement assuring the public that the country was heading in the right direction (Aristeidis and Elias 265). The Bank of England governor insisted that the countrys economy was stable. However, his speech did not coincide with what was happening on the ground. The stock market witnessed a remarkable drop in the value of shares of major British financial institutions (Aristeidis and Elias 265). Additionally, principal credit rating organizations responded to Brexit outcomes by lowering the countrys credit ranking.

The London Stock Exchange confirmed the economic concerns of those opposed to Brexit, albeit temporarily. The Financial Times Exchange (FTSE) 100 Index recorded a noteworthy drop immediately after the market opened (Aristeidis and Elias 267). On 27 June, the locally-focused FTSE 250 Index went down by at least 14% (Aristeidis and Elias 267). Nonetheless, by 1 July, the FTSE 100 had begun to show some improvements. No one expected it to rise beyond pre-referendum levels. On 11 July, the index rose by over 20%, entering the bull market region (Hardy and McCann 166). The FTSE 250 also showed significant improvement since the referendum.

Brexit affected the stability of the UK pound. When Brexit results started being transmitted, the indication that the leave camp was leading contributed to the drop in the value of the pound. After the final results were announced, the currency slumped to its lowest since 1985 (Hardy and McCann 167). One might argue that the pound will regain its value and stabilize once Brexit negotiations are finalized. Nevertheless, the uncertainties surrounding Brexit and the future of the UK will continue to haunt the currency for an unforeseeable period of time. The UK market is bound to remain volatile for some time until the fate of Brexit is determined. The political indecisiveness within the UK is also contributing to market volatility. Most potential investors are skeptical about investing in England. Indeed, many investors have opted to delay their investments hoping that the current situation will stabilize. Hwee holds, Concerns about the future of London as the key financial center will no doubt weigh on investors and businesses. Indeed, economic volatility has cost the United Kingdom a lot of foreign investments.

Spread of Euroscepticism

Pessimistic narratives and toxicity characterized the Brexit campaigns, resulting in people developing negative opinions regarding the EU. The campaigns contributed to the rise of Euroscepticism and gave momentum to anti-establishment fringe parties throughout the European states. The referendum crusade ruined the EUs status in the eyes of its people due to the manner in which different crises were addressed. There are worries that Brexit was just the beginning of the end of the EU. Other countries may also opt to conduct referendums to determine their future in the union. On the other hand, scholars argue that Brexit might be a blessing in disguise. It may enable the remaining EU member states to develop ways to address future disagreements. In fact, there are those who speculate that the EU will be more realistic and articulate from this point onwards.

The Fate of the EU and UK Immigrants

The referendum raised concerns regarding the British citizens working and living in the EU member states and the EU immigrants residing in the UK. At the time of the poll, at least 1.2 million UK citizens were working and staying in different EU countries (Aristeidis and Elias 279). On the other hand, over 3.7 million EU immigrants were residing in the UK (Aristeidis and Elias 279). It was hard for EU countries to determine the future status of these people. Before the referendum, many expatriates could move to the UK in search of jobs. However, one year after the poll, the number of EU immigrants moving to the UK declined from 284,000 to 230,000 (Aristeidis and Elias 281). Conversely, the number of EU immigrants relocating from the UK rose significantly.

The current British Prime Minister, Theresa May, promised that she could leverage the status of the EU citizens living in the UK to negotiate with the European states (Aristeidis and Elias 283). She threatened to deport the immigrants if the EU did not provide favorable exit terms. Today, the status of the EU immigrants living in the UK remains uncertain as negotiations are ongoing. The UK government maintains that it will only guarantee the condition of the EU immigrants living in the country if assured that the European leaders would protect the rights of its citizens residing in their countries. States such as Germany have expressed their willingness to defend the rights of the UK immigrants living in the country. The German Vice-Chancellor claimed that his country would relax citizenship requirements for the UK immigrants to safeguard their status.

Immigration Concerns

Brexit outcomes led to the rise of concerns regarding the free movement of people across the borders of the EU member countries. A few days after the results, the Conservative politicians argued that Brexit would have insignificant impacts on the movement of immigrants between the states (Aristeidis and Elias 271). According to the politician, the referendum was not meant to radically reduce the number of people coming to the UK but to regulate their movement. On the other hand, the Prime Minister argued that leaving the EU implied controlling the number of EU immigrants moving to the UK but also guaranteeing the success of those who wish to do business. A home Office document disclosed in 2017 confirmed that Britain planned to terminate the free movement of immigrants after Brexit and impose controls to make sure that only the highly skilled European workers got into the country (Aristeidis and Elias 284). The British government intended to offer low- and semi-skilled immigrants a temporary residency lasting for two years.

The majority of the Conservative Party members are opposed to the idea of not regulating the movement of the EU immigrants to the UK. They consider the restriction of movement as one of the primary reasons that led to most of them voting to leave the EU. On the other hand, the EU leaders have vowed to deprive Britain of unlimited access to the single market if it does not guarantee the free movement of its people. France has expressed its interest to renegotiate immigration agreements with Britain. The former is against Britains move to erect roadblocks along the Channel that separate the two countries. France argues that Britain has limited free movement of French Immigrants by installing border guards along the Channel.

Impacts on Researchers

The UK government has assured the EU immigrants that their legal rights will not change until further agreements are reached. Nevertheless, most EU scientists are concerned about their future. Currently, over 16% of the university staff in the UK comprises researchers from the EU member countries (Stokstad). The researchers are now worried about their status. They are hesitant to initiating new projects because they are not assured of getting funds or accessing research facilities. Neither the EU nor the UK is giving them sufficient information regarding their future. Recent political developments in the UK have compounded the problem. The current prime minister has done little to clarify the fate of university-based scientists and the research department is no longer responsible for the universities.

Today, universities in the UK are assuming the responsibilities of their activities. For instance, at the Imperial College London (ICL), where a considerable percentage of its students and staff come from the EU countries, the human resource department is encouraging scientists and learners to apply for citizenship or residency (Stokstad). Additionally, the college is providing financial assistance to those interested in applying. The misperception and insecurity surrounding the EU scientists and students in the UK subject the countrys research to risk. Brexit threatens Britains continued participation in Horizon 2020, which is a program that funds essential studies in the EU (Stokstad). Most EU scientists argue that the involvement of the UK researchers in the program will deny them a chance to get funds. Others allege that exclusion of the UK scientists will lead to Britain withholding its financial support, thus hindering the completion of ongoing projects. The UK scientists are also afraid that their government might fail to buy into Horizon 2020 after cessation. Additionally, they are doubtful that the government will increase funding to cater to the resources that came from the EU members.

Political Implications

Germany is among the countries that have benefited politically from Brexit. In the EU, the size of a member states influences the political decision-making system. Thus, the departure of the UK gave the largest member states more influence. Germany is the biggest in the economy and population. Additionally, it has the highest credit rating among the EU countries. Consequently, it will have a significant influence on the EU. Korolewski holds, France and Italy cannot balance Germanys quasi-hegemonic position given their domestic economic and financial downturn. The rise of Germany as the most influential country in the EU has led to increased tension, particularly in states that have no faith in Berlin. For instance, the far-right National Front Party has gained significant power in France.

According to Reuters, Brexit purged the European Union decree that held the UE member states together. The decision to leave the EU has resulted in apprehension amongst the UKs four constituent countries. Northern Ireland and Scotland were against Brexit while Wales and England preferred to leave. Currently, there is tension between the national government and the Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish administrations (Kokotovic and Kurecic 29). The federal government is accused of making political and economic decisions without involving the regional administrations. The impacts of Brexit on the future of the UK are intense and erratic. Currently, domestic politics are quite toxic. Brexit poses essential constitutional problems to the entire UK. Failure to consider the needs of the various regions will result in further divisions within the UK.

Brexit has reduced the UKs influence at the global level. Blockmans and Emerson argue, The EU has acted as a multiplier for the UKs foreign and security policy interests throughout the world, backed by the weight of the EUs single market and its wide range of foreign policy tools. Britain did not get the support of its friends from the Commonwealth, Europe, the United States, and the world at large. Secession from the EU has reduced the UKs ability to promote its foreign policy interests at the world level. Other countries no longer perceive Britain as neutral.

Conclusion

Britain has not benefited economically from Brexit. Instead, the decision to leave the EU has affected the countrys most significant stock indexes. Uncertainties about the future of the countrys economic growth have contributed to instability in the value of the UK pound. Investors have opted to wait for the ongoing negotiations to be completed before they decide to invest in the country. There are fears that the UKs trade deficit will increase as the country may not have access to the EUs single market. Many experts argue that the political repercussions of Brexit will be more severe than they already are. Scotland has already expressed its intention to call for a referendum to secede from the UK. Although the UK will eventually overcome all these hardships, it could have avoided them by opting to remain in the EU. The economies of the UK and the EU are mutually dependent. Thus, the two parties will have to reach a common ground. The fate of the EU and UK immigrants depends on the ongoing negotiations. Failure to agree on immigration policies will result in the UK losing a significant number of highly skilled immigrants who contribute to its economy. Moreover, government spending will rise as UK immigrants move back to their country.

Works Cited

Aristeidis, Samitas, and Kampouris Elias. Empirical Analysis of Market Reactions to the UKs Referendum Results  How Strong will Brexit be? Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, vol. 53, no. 1, 2018, pp. 263-286.

Blockmans, Steven, and Michael Emerson. Brexit Consequences for the UK  and the EU. Center for Policy Studies, 2016. Web.

Goodwin, Matthew, and Oliver Heath. The 2016 Referendum, Brexit and the Left Behind: An Aggregate-level Analysis of the Results. The Political Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 3, 2016, pp. 323-332.

Hardy, Jane, and Leo McCann. Brexit one Year on: Introducing the Special Issue. Competition & Change, vol. 21, no. 3, 2017, pp. 165-168.

Hwee, Yeo Lay. Brexit Aftermath: Implications and Repercussions of the Vote to Leave EU. The Strait Times, Web.

Kokotovic, Filip, and Petar Kurecic. The Case of Brexit: An Analysis of the Political and Economic Factors. Journal of Economic and Social Development, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 27-36.

Korolewski, Ireneusz Pawel. Political and Economic Consequences of Brexit. Central European Financial Observer, 2016. Web.

Reuters. Brexits Effects on the U.K. Will be Profound and Unpredictable, Lawmakers Say. Fortune, 2017. Web.

Stokstad, Erik. Uncertainty Reigns in aftermath of the United Kingdoms Brexit Vote. Science, 2016. Web.

Is the United States a Benevolent Hegemon or a Malevolent Hegemon?

Introduction

The United States has been embroiled in world politics for more than a hundred years. In that regard, its foreign policy has been a major investment with regard to time and money. After World War II, the foreign policy aimed at halting the spread of communism, which came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Today, the United States foreign policy goals include the promotion of democratic ideals and human rights, promotion of world peace, the maintenance of a power balance among nations, and the preservation of its national security. In addition, it aims to promote cooperative foreign trade and solve international problems. In that regard, some policies have had a significant positive global impact while others have had a negative global impact. On balance, I would argue that the US is a benevolent hegemon.

Examples of Initiatives with a Global Impact

United States foreign policy initiatives have had both positive and negative impacts. Three initiatives that have impacted the world positively include the maintenance of world peace and a secure global environment, the maintenance of power among nations, and working with allies to solve global problems (Anderson 45). On the other hand, three policy initiatives that have had a negative impact on other countries and the world include the weakening of Hezbollah, the prevention of North Korea from owning nuclear weapons, and the plan to stop China and Russia from becoming superpowers (Abrams 76). These initiatives have significantly affected global security, the global economy, and international relations between countries.

Power Balance among Nations

The United States initiative to maintain a power balance among nations has had a positive impact on certain countries and the world at large. For example, several US presidents sought to prevent the supremacy of a single country over others in Asia and Europe (Anderson 49). In that regard, the US participated actively in World War I and II that lasted four decades. The major goal of the USs foreign policy was attained because the dominion of the Soviet Union was annihilated after its collapse in 1991 (Gries 44).

In the contemporary world, the United States is keen on preventing multipolarity in the world like France, Germany, Britain, and Russia fight for supremacy in Europe and China, Japan, and Korea in Asia (Hixson 54). The US was determined to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in 1990, which showed that the US was ready to defend weaker nations and maintain its sovereignty.

One of the most successful foreign policy initiatives is the halting of Irans nuclear weapons program. The United States oversaw the signing of a nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 countries. Instead of coercing Iran to abandon its nuclear program entirely, it held talks with Tehran and reached a deal (Aistrope 47).

The US did not use its military supremacy to compel Iran to give up its nuclear program. This one of the rare instances that the US refrained from military force and overt coercion to enforce its foreign policy. The disarmament of Iran was a relief to neighboring states that were victims of Irans purported superiority because of its nuclear program (Hixson 41). The US also brokered a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan and created the Proliferation Security Initiative that stopped the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technology.

Maintenance of World Peace and Security

The United States has on several occasions applied its economic and military supremacy to foster peace and security in the world. For instance, it used its military forces to dispel Iraqi troops from Kuwait and end al-Qaidas dominion over Afghanistan (Gries 53). Moreover, it stopped the atrocities that were being spearheaded by Serbia in Kosovo. Many foreign policies have argued that these actions are usually aimed at promoting the interests and values of the United States. Though true, many countries and regions of the world have benefited significantly from the United States implementation of its foreign policy (Anderson 74).

The US has been described as an indispensable nation that uses its economic and military strength to mobilize the world to action toward the promotion of peace and security (Aistrope 87). In that regard, the US can be described as a benevolent hegemon because its foreign policy initiative of promoting peace and security is not implemented in order to expand its power through territorial gains. They are implemented because as the global superpower, it has the responsibility of promoting peace and enhancing security.

In addition, the US has played a significant role in fighting terrorism after September 11, 2000. President Obama expanded the struggle against terrorism by using drone strikes, covert operations, and other military strategies to fight the Islamic State (ISIS). The US did not win the war against terrorist groups. However, it has lowered the incidence of attacks on American soil since the September 11 attack.

The Invasion of Iraq by the US was aimed at defending international peace against the oppressive regime of President Saddam Hussein (Gries 51). In recent years, China has been expanding and strengthening its military, a move that has been viewed by its neighbors as disturbing the peace (Abrams 59). Chinas claim to the Spratly Islands is likely to cause conflicts in the region, and the US is determined to deter China from destabilizing the region through its agenda of military and economic global expansion.

Solving Global Problems

The US solves global problems by giving foreign assistance to developing economies. The major problems solved include poverty, diseases, and insecurity (Hixson 65). Giving foreign aid benefits the recipient countries as well as the US because it is a strategic and economic imperative that enhances national security (Abrams 63). Globalization has played a significant role in the broadening of the United States foreign policy agenda because of its involvement in solving global problems.

For instance, several organizations that offer aid to developing countries aim to end poverty, poor governance, ignorance, and infectious diseases. For example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the United States African Development Foundation (USADF) provide aid to developing countries in an effort to fight poverty and diseases (Gries 67).

Foreign aid also helps developed countries. For instance, after World War II, the US gave foreign aid to Europe to aid in the rebuilding of infrastructure, economic revival, and promotion of peace (Abrams 83). The Marshall Plan was highly successful, and as a result, the US created several programs to offer foreign aid to needy countries and regions of the world.

Americas foreign policy initiative to solve global problems has been beneficial to many countries. Currently, over 20 government agencies offer foreign aid to more than 100 countries around the world (Aistrope 98). The aid helps to combat terrorism, address poverty, fight diseases, promoting democracy, and expanding free markets. Numerous countries and regions benefit from the US foreign assistance funding that is classified into 9 groups: health, peace and security, humanitarian assistance, environment, education, and social services, democracy, human rights, and governance, multi-sector, economic development, and program management.

Examples of government agencies that fund and execute foreign assistance activities include the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of the Treasury, Department of State, Peace Corps, Inter-American Foundation, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Hixson 76).

Conclusion

The United States foreign policy has both positive and negative outcomes on countries and regions of the world. Since World War I, America has been providing foreign assistance to many countries in the world as part of its economic and political strategy. Developing economies in the contents of Arica and Asia have benefited from Americas foreign aid. Financial assistance has led to the rapid growth of certain economies.

However, the US uses the assistance to further its interests. Some of the policy initiatives have caused negative outcomes: trying to stop China and Russia from becoming superpowers, preventing North Korea from owning nuclear weapons, and the weakening of Hezbollah. Many countries of the world are enjoying more economic prosperity, better health services, political prosperity, and peace because of Americas foreign policy initiatives. In that regard, America is a benevolent hegemon that is responsible for numerous global successes: enhanced economic development in poor countries, improved global peace and security, and the protection of weaker nations sovereignty.

Works Cited

Abrams, Elliot. Realism and Democracy: American Foreign Policy after the Arab Spring. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Aistrope, Tim. Conspiracy Theory and American Foreign Policy. Manchester University Press, 2016.

Anderson, Perry. American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers. Verso, 2015.

Gries, Peter Hays. The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs. Stanford University Press, 2014.

Hixson, Walter L. American foreign Relations: A New diplomatic History. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

An Alliance With America Analysis

An alliance is an agreement between two parties. These agreements are founded on the pursuit of a common goal or target, which can be determined over a period of time. When a country agrees to have an alliance with another country, the implication is that the country may have an alliance concerning economics or politics. The United States being a superpower, is one of the most influential countries that other countries would want to initiate an alliance with. This is because the country is well endowed with resources; it is an economic giant and also a superpower with indicates that the country has a lot of influence in world matters. The political system of the country is another important factor to consider when it comes to an international alliance with other countries. The country has a very stable government and also a systematic way of leadership. This is one of the factors that have seen it run on a federal government of fifty-two states. The country also has a very strong foundation of democracy, and these are the characters that any country in the world is looking for. The most important allies of the United States are Britain, Israel and Australia (Bell 1998:25).

Thesis Statement

The paper will focus on the nature of the United States power and how this power is used to influence countries to become allies of the country. This study will focus on the advantages that a country stands to derive from forming an alliance with the United States. It will also focus on the implication of such an alliance and will give a strong conclusion on the matter concerning an alliance with the country.

Controlling ideas

The advantages that any country in the world stands to derive from an alliance with the United States are numerous. The advantages will be based if the country is a developed country or a developing country. The study will focus on both developed and developing countries and how they stand to gain from the alliance. One of the common benefits is economic benefits which are both applicable to developed and developing countries because of trading and financial aid. The other is the military help that is also applicable to both developing and developed countries because the country is well endowed with a well-organized military, and this means that the country is able to support its allies in military terms when the need arises. The country also has a political background that is a force to reckon with and thus may be used to attract allies because the allies are sure that with the rule of democracy, the country may benefit a lot from the superpower (Bell 1988:25).

The nature of American power wo uldbe beneficial to any country.

Since winning the Second World War, America has been a superpower with little opposition from Russia and other allies of Russia. The countrys power has no competitor in the world today, and it has used this power to be the overseer of the world order and the spread of democracy all over the world. Although in its effort to be the world perfect in terms of world order and democracy, it has been cultivated a number of enemies, the country has not faced a worthy competitor in military capabilities. Its major threats are terrorism, and this has affected the countrys economy, especially with the 9/11 attacks, which happened in the American soils (Buchanan 1972:125).

The country also boasts of one of the most sophisticated intelligence communities in the world, and this is very important for any country. The gathering of information is very vital for the national security of any country, and this has helped the country in maintaining its national security. The CIA is one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and though it has faced its ups and downs over time, it is still a force to reckon with.

Economically, the American economy constitutes 32% of the worlds economy. This means that it is the largest economy in the world, and this is also one of the benefits that any country in the world would stand to benefit from. The country has been playing a large part in helping the needy countries in the world through various organizations such as USAID. It is also the leading financier of the United Nations in the world (Burr 1955: 236).

Advantages of Alliance with America

On the other hand, one of the advantages of an alliance with the United States would be the financial help a country would derive from such an alliance. The countrys economy is capable of supporting a developing country in significant levels of the economy. The country is also well organized in terms of trade, and an ally of the United States would benefit very much from trading with the country. This is because the country is known for its good trading background, which has seen it achieve the kind of development status it has achieved. Any country developed or developing stands to benefit a lot from trading with the United States. Developing countries also have the advantages of financial help in terms of loans, grants and aid. Many developed countries have benefited from advances from the United States, which have seen the economies of these countries improve significantly (Axelrod 2000:120). On the other hand, America has been known to control its allies due to its economic strengths. This means that the country would have to comply with various policies set forth by the United States, and this may jeopardize the relationship of the country with other countries. A good example is a war on terrorism policy brought about by the United States. This would have to be affected by all the countries that are allied to the United States, and failure to that the country would lose its ties to the United States. In the same respect, the country will have to antagonize its relationship with other countries that are against the policy, mostly the Islamic countries.

Secondly, the other advantage is the immunity a country can get from its enemies. The United States have one of the largest militaries in the world, and they dont hesitate to help allies with their military capabilities when the need arises. This can be well evidenced in the help they have given Israel when it is involved in wars with the Arab nations in the world. It has also helped Australia on these fronts since their alliance. More so, the United States will also ask for military assistance when it is necessary. For example, in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States was supported by countries such as Britain, NATO countries and Australia. This shows that for a country to be allied to the United States, it stands the benefit of having military support from the major military forces in the world which are also allied to the United States (Bell 1988: 36). On the other hand, the immunity could also force the country to a status of neo-colonialism, and this is the case that is happening in the world today. America has been blamed for controlling the policies of other countries, especially the countries that are dependent on the countrys military assistant. The foreign policies of most of these countries have been subjected to being controlled by the American forces, and it dictates which countries such a country will be related to in its international forums. Furthermore, the country will also share the same enemies with the Americans, and these enemies have inflicted a lot of suffering and destruction to American allies who have no capability of countering their intentions.

The country also can derive the benefit of accessing the world market in an easier way when it is an ally of the United States. This is because many countries in the world do not shy away from trading with America, and this can help in opening new avenues for a countrys produce exportation. Many countries which are allied to the United States have the benefit of accessing its vast markets. This implies that since the market of the United States is very large, a country can concentrate on trading with the country and be assured that its surpluses will be sold very easily to the markets of the countries that are allied to the United States. These markets include such markets as European markets, which the United States has been very influential in. In the same respect, the country stands the chance of benefiting from imports of high quality from the American market (Bevans 1969: 65). On the other hand, such a country will also have to comply with the policies of the American nation and also, the countries it will relate to are dictated by the United States. These have jeopardized many countries foreign policy as they have been forced to do away with some of their more important allies in the world.

The implication of an alliance with the United States

However, there are implications that a country wishing to be an ally of the United States should be will to comply with. One of them is that all its markets must change to capitalistic markets and that it must honour the war on terrorism. These implications have been the major hindrances to many countries becoming American allies. Another implication is that the government formation must be democratic, and this has also been another issue with some governments who have the view that other forms of government are better compared to democratic rule. There is also the danger that American enemies might become the enemies of the ally. This means that the country might have to be faced with terrorism activities directed at the country (Axelrod 200: 125).

Counter Argument

On the other hand, there are various complications that come with the alliance. One of the complications is that the United States tend to be over domineering its allies and what the government of the United States stipulates must be followed to the letter; otherwise, the alliance will be jeopardized. This means that the other government is compromised when it comes to making its own decisions, especially foreign policy.

Another complication is that the United States policy of being the worlds perfect in terms of world order and democracy has managed to attract many enemies. Any country becoming an ally of the United States stands the chance of sharing the enemies. The implication of this is that the enemies can strike the country to ridicule the United States, and this means that the country that is hit is the one that suffers.

These are some of the reasons that the alliance of any country with the United States is viewed closely and the implications weighed. If any country comes to the conclusion that its alliance will bring more trouble than benefits, then it is necessary for the country to refrain from such an alliance because the security of its citizens must be considered first and foremost, just like the United States have put the security of their citizens in the forefront of their concerns.

In conclusion, a country stands a great chance of benefiting from an alliance with the United States. There are numerous advantages that a country stands to accumulate if it is allied with the United States, which will vary from the sophisticated intelligence, economic and financial advantages and also military support in case of a war. The United States does not shy away from helping its allies in any type of need, be it financial or militarily. This means that such a country will benefit a lot from such an arrangement with the world superpower (Bevans 1969: 96).

Various allies of America have benefited in various ways from their alliance with America. Examples of these countries include many European countries, Israel and Australia. These countries have benefited a lot in terms of trade, military and intelligence, which have helped them overcome some of their problems.

References

  1. Axelrod, Alan. ed. (2000). American Treaties and Alliances. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
  2. Bell, Coral. (1988). Dependent Ally: A study in Australian Foreign Policy. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bevans, Charles I. (1969). Treaties and other international agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949. Washington: Department of State.
  4. Buchanan, A. Russell. (1972). The United States and World War II Military and Diplomatic Documents. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  5. Burr, Robert N. and Roland D. Hussey. (1955). Documents on Inter-American Cooperation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

The Foremost Problem Confronting United Nations Organization

There can little doubt as to the fact that the most significant problem confronting the Organization of United Nations (U.N.) is this organizations operational ineffectiveness, which causes many political observers to suggest that U.N. continuous existence, in its present state, does not make much of a sense. Ever since the time of its founding in 1945, U.N. has failed to effectively solve even a single international conflict. In his article Going with a Winner, Davis Pryce-Jones says The pitiful record of the U.N. in the Middle East speaks for itself. Far from preventing war, it precipitated it in 1967; stood by impotently in 1973; could do nothing about the Syrian invasion of Lebanon and would have accepted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait unless the United States had acted; prolonged the Palestinian refugee problem; washed its hands of Israeli security; in short, has been pointless at best, harmful at worst (Pryce-Jones 20).

For the duration of last 30 years, not a single U.N. Session has been conducted, without delegates spending a great amount of time, while discussing what can be done to eliminate hunger in developing countries. Yet, despite milliards of dollars being poured into these countries economies, over the course of decades, people in Africa did not become less hungry. The reason for this is simple  developing countries are not really developing, they are rapidly descending into primeval savagery. In its turn, this points at U.N. bureaucracys unwillingness to face the objective geopolitical realities as they are. Even people, who think that the existence of U.N. is vital, within a context of protecting worlds peace, cannot avoid mentioning that this organization needs to be reformed. In the preface to their book The United Nations. An Introduction, Sven Gareis and Johannes Varwick state: It is also impossible to overlook the fact that the UN in its present form is unable to play its role adequately as motor and agent of a comprehensive politics of world order (Gareis and Varwick, Preface, 2005).

Nowadays, only very few people remember that U.N. was being founded as the instrument of enforcement the so-called Peace of Westphalia on a global scale.

According to the Peace Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which was signed between European countries that participated in Thirty Years War, every countrys sovereign right to define its form of government, and its state religion, without the involvement of a third party, such as Holy See, represents the legal foundation of international law. In his article Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History, Daniel Philpott provides us with the insight on the utter importance of Peace of Westphalia, within a context of legitimizing the notion of national sovereignty: Before the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, the first modern revolution in sovereignty, there was no sovereignty; no legitimate authority was supreme within its territory& Westphalia set new standards for each of sovereigntys three faces. It made the sovereign state the legitimate political unit. It implied that basic attributes of statehood such as the existence of a government with control of its territory were now, along with Christianity, the criteria for becoming a state (Philpott 2005, p. 360). Ever since the Peace of Westphalia was signed, it became possible for the members of geopolitical community to base their attitude towards the participants of just about every military conflict on absolutely rational principles. However, the todays objective realities indicate the fact that U.N. has actually been transformed into something opposite from what it originally used to be, namely the tool of Globalization, the ultimate goal of which is being declared the creation of World Government, because the existence of such government automatically implies the elimination of the notion of national sovereignty out of international body politics. This is the reason why U.N. fully supported NATOs aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 and Americas war against Iraq in 2003 (in both cases under the excuse of protecting the democracy), which was nothing but the most blatant violation of the most fundamental principles of Peace of Westphalia. In other words, U.N. acted against the declared purpose of its own existence as protection of peace and countries national sovereignty. Ever since 1999, the notion of national sovereignty had ceased to represent an ontological value, in the eyes of international communitys members. This is the reason why recent years saw the dramatic increase in the number of international conflicts, with U.N. proving its operational impotence, while addressing these conflicts. Foe example, after Russia had invaded Georgia in 2008, the U.N. Security Council had met up for four times, during the course of 7 days, after the beginning of hostilities, without being able to come up with a resolution, which would address the issue. While people were being killed by hundreds on daily basis, U.N. bureaucrats were engaging each other in verbal duels, on whether Russias invasion could be considered as the act of war or not. In his article The Five-Day War Managing Moscow After the Georgia Crisis, Charles King says: The true significance of the latest crisis in the Caucasus is that Russia has embarked on a new era of muscular intervention, showing little faith in multilateral institutions, such as the un Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in which it exerts considerable influence (King 2008, p. 5).

Today, the U.N. has been turned into the bureaucratic quasi-state, which exists simply for the sake of its existence. In his article Saving the U.N.: A Challenge to the Next Secretary-General, James Helms makes a perfectly good point when he suggests: As it currently operates, the United Nations does not deserve continued American support. Its bureaucracy is proliferating, its costs are spiralling, and its mission is constantly expanding beyond its mandate  and beyond its capabilities. Worse, with the steady growth in the size and scope of its activities, the United Nations is being transformed from an institution of sovereign nations into a quasi-sovereign entity in itself (Helms 3). It is important to understand that U.N. represents the biggest bureaucratic apparatus that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. However, as history shows, bureaucracy is only concerned about remaining in position of authority, while being perfectly aware of essentially a parasitic mode of its existence. It has become a common practice for even the lowest-ranking U.N. officials to use U.N. paid private jets, while travelling internationally. These people spend millions of dollars to hold a variety of meaningless conferences and symposiums (elimination of worlds hunger), simply to socialize with each other, while eventually growing to believe in their own importance. They never experience any shortage of money  U.S. alone contributes $3.5 billion to U.N. on annual basis! During the course of numerous conferences on elimination of worlds thirst, held by U.N. in recent years, throughout the world, the participants (consisting of U.N. officials) used to quench their thirst with champagne that cost $1500-2000 a bottle, while staying in eight stars hotels. In his article Saving the U.N.: A Challenge to the Next Secretary-General, Jesse Helms exposes U.N. humanitarian initiatives as being counter-productive, in their essence: U.N. bureaucracy mistakenly believes that caring for the needs of all the worlds people is exactly its job. From the bureaucracys vantage point, there are no international, national, or even local problems  all problems are U.N. problems. Thus we have the recent Habitat II conference in Istanbul, where the United Nations spent millions of dollars to address the concerns of cities  an issue that legitimately should be handled by local or national governments (Helms 1996, p. 5).

In its turn, this brings us to conclusion that U.N. biggest problem (operational ineffectiveness) has deterministic subtleties, which mean that hardly anything be done to improve organizations reputation, in the eyes of ordinary people. This is because the very ideological premise, upon which Organizations existence is based, is conceptually wrong. This premise implies that worlds countries are equally interested in pursuing the policy of international cooperation as such that has value in itself. This, however, could not possibly be the case, simply because such policy can only benefit a particular country, for as long as it corresponds to this countrys national interests. Apparently  the effectiveness of international cooperation is proportionally related to the extent of countries sovereignty, that participate in such cooperation, and has very little to do with the existence of international political bodies (U.N.), as it is being commonly believed today. Two strong neighbouring countries are much more likely to respect treaties signed between them, then strong and weak countries, for example, even though that in latter case, the legitimacy of these treaties might be guaranteed by international organizations. The validity of this thesis can be best illustrated by the failure of League of Nations, which was founded in 1919, to prevent the outbreak of WW2 in 1939, and by U.N.s failure to put an end to the conflict in Middle East.

The only purpose for founding U.N. in 1945 was to manage geopolitical developments in bipolar world (U.S. vs. USSR) in orderly manner and to prevent the outbreak of WW3. Yet, it was not the U.N. bureaucracy, which prevented Cold War from turning into WW3, but the fact that both super-powers were in possession of weapons of mass destruction. The various international agreements are not even worthy of the paper they are being written on, unless signatories have practical interest in sticking to the terms of these agreements. This provides us with the insight on the true cause for U.N. utter failure to bring peace to the region of Middle East  Jews and Palestinians are simply not interested in living peacefully side by side and there nothing can be done about it; yet, U.N. appears to be simply incapable of facing this objective reality. Moreover, the U.N.s advertised concerns over global inequality, global hunger or global thirst have nothing to do with Organizations actual agenda of setting up a stage for the emergence of World Government. This is the reason why organizations affiliated with U.N. are now being so preoccupied with promotion of the idea of global governing. In his article Globalization Talk at Davos, while referring to World Economic Forum, which had taken place in Davos on January 30, 2009, Thomas Eddlem talks about it as an attempt of worlds Plutocracy to legitimize its strive to take over the world: What Merkels (German Chancellor) proposal would mean in concrete terms is global government (which Globalists call global governance) and the creation of this global government through various international institutions under the umbrella of an empowered United Nations (Eddlem 2009). These ideas correspond rather well to those contained in the book The Next Global Stage, written by one of the most ardent supporters of the idea that U.N. operational mandates should be extended, Kenichi Ohmae: The global economy ignores barriers, but if they are not removed, they cause distortion. The traditional centralized nation-state is another cause of friction. It is ill equipped to play a meaningful role on the global stage (Ohmae 2005, p. 25). Thus, only very naïve people can believe that the issue of U.N.s operational ineffectiveness can be addressed by reforming this organization  ever since the collapse of Soviet Union, the existence of U.N. had ceased to make even a formal sense, because it is now U.S., which remains a unilateral arbiter on international arena. In other words, the only people that benefit out of U.N. continuous existence are this organizations officials, the number of which today amounts to 84.000. Therefore, the purely cosmetic methods of increasing organizations efficiency (reducing its bureaucratic apparatus in size, designing humanitarian initiatives, popularising the notion of environmental friendliness among the citizens of U.N. countries-members etc.), can never be truly effective.

It appears that in very near future, the U.N. will either be disbanded or transformed into the branch of World Government, which is why it does not make much of a sense to even discuss the possibility of U.N. beginning to live up to its name. In coming years, U.N. will remain what it used to be for the duration of last twenty years  the global bastion of worlds corruption and incompetence. This organizations existence had long ago assumed inertial subtleties  many people simply cannot imagine modern world without the U.N., even despite the fact that, during the course of its operational history, this organization had proven itself as counter-productive factor of geopolitics. Nowadays, U.N. has turned into the biggest financial sham ever  the billions of dollars in economic aid to developing countries, from U.N., are being laundered through Africas banks and placed on private accounts of those U.N. bureaucrats who whine about worlds injustices the most. U.N. officials are being continuously caught accepting bribes and indulging in variety of illegal activities, while taking a full advance of their diplomatic status. The editorial Den of Thieves: Corruption at the U.N., available in National Review Magazine from December 13, 2004, provides us with the insight on the actual scale of corruption, associated with this organizations humanitarian initiatives: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan should either resign, if he is honourable, or be removed, if he is not. He has presided over no less than the largest corruption scandal in the history of the world, Oil for Food. Never has the U.N. been more disrespectable or useless (National Review 2004). Thus, we can conclude this paper by suggesting that the best way to deal with U.N.s inefficiency is disbandment of this organization altogether. In near future, it is not bureaucrats in high offices, but ordinary people out on the street, which will be put in position of defining the political realities in the world. These realities will correspond to the new era in worlds history: communities vs. organizations and states. There are many indications that point out to the fact that this new era has already began  the group Hamas, with the membership of 1000 men, has been keeping the whole region of Middle East (and consequentially, the whole world) in the state of permanent political tension, for the duration of last 10 years, despite the fact that it does not even exist officially. Osama bin Laden (single individual) has declared a war on U.S. in 2001, which continues even today, whereas  it has only taken four years for America to defeat both: Germany and Japan, during the course of WW2. Therefore, the international organizations deprived of communal spirit, will become the thing of the past in very near future. This statement concerns U.N. more then any other international organization. U.N. has been given many chances to prove its usefulness; yet, it had failed miserably at just about every of its undertakings. Therefore, it would only be logical to kick the hordes of U.N. bureaucrats out of their offices and to ask them to do something useful for a change, like helping farmers with their agricultural work.

Bibliography

  1. Den of Thieves: Corruption at the U.N. 2004. National Review. vol. 56, no. 23, p. 16.
  2. Eddlem, T. 2009. Globalization Talk at Davos. New America.
  3. Gareis, S. and Varwick, J. 2005. The United Nations. An Introduction. Palgrave, MacMillan.
  4. Helms, J. 1996. Saving the U.N.: a Challenge to the Next Secretary-General. Foreign Affairs. Vol.75, no. 5, pp. 2-7.
  5. Pryce-Jones, D. 2002. Going with a Winner. National Review, vol. 54, no. 19, pp. 20, 22-23.
  6. Philpott, D. 1995. Sovereignty: an Introduction and Brief History. Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 353-68.
  7. King, C. 2008. The Five-Day War: Managing Moscow after the Georgia Crisis. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 87, no. 6, pp 2-5, 6-8, 9-11.
  8. Ohmae, K. 2005. Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World. Upper Saddle River, Wharton School Publishing.

International Relations Theories: A Foundation for the National Security Policymaking Process

Introduction

The way the US national strategy changed during the last decades shows changes in the nature of the threats the country is facing, either locally or abroad. In that regard, it can be stated that some of the failures that national security faced since the end of the cold war indicate that there are some doubts in the capability of such national security strategy to respond to the threats in the new era. The latte can be explained through changes in the security environment, which in turn led to new challenges that national security has to face in modern era. The nature of the changes itself is rather contradictory, a fact that can be seen as one of the reasons that US national security policy and priorities have become complicated, often ambiguous, and even inconsistentnot because of immediate threat of major conventional war but rather the unpredictable, uncertain, and confusing characteristics of the international arena.1

The changes in the distribution of power after the end of the cold war led to that some of the aspect of the policymaking process became unsuitable to outline national security priorities in the world today. The two aspects that can be seen as challenges to the policymaking process and partly responsible for national security failures are the overwhelming reliance on the realist paradigm in international relations, as well as the blur that occurred between national security and foreign policy. In that regard, the present paper will attempt to provide an analysis of the aforementioned national security issues, stating that pursuing the liberal approach in international relations and differentiating between foreign policy and national security can improve the policymaking process for the latter.

Hypothesis and Purpose Statement

The purpose of this paper is to integrate the theoretical framework of international relations as a foundation for the national security policymaking process. The paper will provide an analysis of the current challenges in the policymaking process, derived from examples of the US policy after 9/11 and linked to the views on US foreign policy that were outlined in the works of Thomas Barnett. This study will argue that liberal paradigm can be more suitable in shaping national security policies. A clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of different agencies will lead to that such policies will be implemented in coordinated efforts.

Theoretical Perspective

The theoretical perspective proposed as a part of the analysis is the realist paradigm in international relations. Despite facing criticism, it can be stated that in such a turbulent era of conflicts, the realist paradigms can be set as a framework that will facilitate solving the challenges that a national security of a state will face. The realist paradigm argues that the system of international relations consists of states-nations, which exist in an anarchic, self-help environment. 2 The anarchy existent in the international system can be seen as the structural constraint that limits the rational policy options of states to such an extent that they are expected to behave in virtually identical ways when confronted in similar situations.3 In terms of security, the realist paradigm implies maximizing power, relative to other states, where deterrence is the only reliable mean of aggression. With the changes in the realist though, the privileged aim of the state changed from power in the classical realist paradigm to security and survival in the neorealist tradition. The criticism focusing on the realist paradigm is directly connected to the topic of the research, i.e. the challenges of national security policymaking. In that regard, part of the difficulties in addressing the issues of national security can be seen through adopting some of the hypotheses and postulates of the realist paradigm when shaping the strategy of national security. The criticism of the realist paradigm in the context of the national security can be seen through the following points:

  • In times of a security threat, civil liberties might less likely be supported by the judicial system.
  • Sole reliance on power as the main key driving factor of state behavior. 4
  • The security is an attribute of military deterrence.
  • Contradictions with the system of collective security.5

The liberal paradigm as an opposing framework to the realist paradigm emphasizes institutionalization and networks of exchanges between states and non-states and continuing bargaining between them.6 Despite the emphasis on institutionalization, in which liberal tradition was favored as a foundation of international cooperation, rationality and pragmatism remain as the bases for the decision making process.

It should be noted that the selection of the realist paradigm for analysis was rationalized by the intention of showing the that the deficiencies in the current national security policymaking is largely attributed to the realist paradigm, and at the same time, arguing that many of the paradigms foundations are not only connected to international relations. In that regard, it is argued that the liberal paradigm, assumed to be shifting the realist approach, does not have the influence it claims it has, the war in Iraq which was not sanctioned by the UN is a clear example of the latter, i.e. non-acceptance of institutionalization. Furthermore, Michael Mastanduno, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government and Associate Dean of the Social Sciences at Dartmouth College, argues that U.S foreign policy is still consistent with realist principles, insofar as its actions are still designed to preserve U.S. predominance and to shape a postwar order that advances American interests.78

Background

Identifying the challenges in national security policymaking, a background of US most notable failures as well as the common elements in such failures might be required. In that regard, the classification provided by Thomas Barnett in The Pentagons New Map (2004) can be used as the foundation upon which the background of the problem will be built. In that regard, Barnett argued that in terms of direct conflict, the United States will be capable of wining battles almost instantaneously. However, such model was not capable to deal with the outcome of such fast successes, i.e. successfully governing the transitional period that follows. Barnett explained such fact with the absence of system administrators, i.e. department that will be dealing with transitional period of the conflict.9 Although the latter can be seen related with warfare and conflicts, rather than issues of national security, it can be stated that it is more interconnected, and directly attached to the policymaking process. Such connection can be seen in that events such as 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan are inputs for the policymaking process, to which policy makers respond through maximizing the interests of national security. 10 The blur between the national security policy and the foreign policy can be seen as one of the challenges of the policymaking process. 11Such blur, in that regard, can be seen the same in the way the military force used to start conflict, but not capable of driving the zone of the conflict into the transition zone.

Translating the latter into real cases, it can be stated that the failure to involve major states into the Iraq war is exemplary of the domination of the realist approach. Such approach can be translated into a policymaking failure, where instead of being a global response to a politically bankrupt regime it turned into a fight of the US against religion. The latter confirms the statement of the realist paradigm that each state is a rational actor that always acts in accordance with its own self-interest.12 Following such paradigm led to that a US security dilemma because increasing ones own security produces greater instability as opponents build up their forces to balance.13 The latter was demonstrated in Iraq, where a fast success in invading Iraq, subsequently led to an aggression and a difficult transitional period, which costs were carried by the US alone.

In terms of coordination and differentiation between foreign policy and national security, the blurring difference between the military force and the force in restructuring Iraq can be seen as an example. There are differences in the tasks between Military officers and Foreign Service officers, but nevertheless, due to the lack of domestic support and adequate funding led to that the military conducted partly the tasks of the Foreign Service officers. 14

Analysis

The information provided in the background can be translated into the statement that policymaking process should be switched toward the liberal paradigm in international relations. National security implies having the capacity not only to be involved in wars and deter attacks, but also protecting any national interests of the state. The definition of national security policy states that it is a policy which is primarily concerned with formulating and implementing national strategy involving the threat or use of force to create a favorable environment for US national interests.15 This paper argues that the source for policymaking decisions should be represented not by the military conflict as an input, but rather, by the aftermath period, or what Barnett calls, the everything else. In that regard, the deficiencies of the realist paradigm can become apparent, when the driver is not the tendency to dominate, but rather to make the environment favorable to national interests, a goal which is embedded within the definition of national security policy.

The deficiencies in the realist approach are reduced to the focus of force and threat. The latter can be seen through the way advisory commissions were formed to aid the policy making process, and the outcomes/responses that were generated. The focus of force and threat can be demonstrated through the pattern of events from the 9/11 attack to the Iraq invasion. The formation of the 9/11 commission was initiated by the 2001 attack. Accordingly, it can be stated that the formation of the commission was driven by the failure to predict the attack. The resulting decisions were made in response to the attack, i.e. a threat. The fear of a following attack from terrorists initiated the Iraq invasion, which was supported by report on weapons of mass destruction. A force was used to invade Iraq, move which was in turn initiated by threat, i.e. intelligence reports. In such pattern, the realist paradigm can be seen through Niebuhrs arguments, in which he explained over-defensiveness or irrational fear as being caused by the lack of physical security, which in turn lead to conflicts. Pursue of security is viewed as the only legitimate cause of war within the realist paradigm. 16 In that regard, the decision of invading Iraq after the 9/11 attack can be seen as an example of over-defensiveness, which in retrospect is confirmed by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Threats made everything a matter of national security, an aspect that made the concept of national security meaningless.17 The liberal paradigm, on the other hand, will lead to that cooperation between states will be important stimuli in driving the policymaking process. The liberal approach is based on interdependency between institutions, i.e. different actors across states acting within their domain to design and determine the constraints and opportunities for state power. Such interdependence can be translated into a case that can be described as follows:

Military security normally competes for attention and priority with these non-security issues. State power and decision-making are parceled among these policy domains. Depending on the issue at hand, rival coalitions of actors coalesce within the state, including counterparts at transnational and domestic levels of action in other states, to press for their favored outcome on a particular issue.18

A practical implementation of the aforementioned, which at the same time will be within the liberal paradigm, is the example provided by Thomas Barnett on the situation in Iraq, where in an ideal case there would be 30,000 to 40,000 peacekeepers each from NATO, Russia, India, and China.19

In addition to the choice of paradigm in national security policy making, the blur between foreign policy and national security policy can be also seen as a major challenge to the policymaking process in the latter. Such challenge was transformed into the current a framework of interagency cooperation and coordination. An indication of tension between different agencies as well as their roles and responsibilities started to emerge during George W. Bush administration, i.e. the period outlined in previous examples, the 9/11 attack (the threat), and the Iraq invasion (the response). A shift was seen in the decision making power from the Department of State to the Department of Defense; [t]he inattention to functional interdependence was a contributing factor to the ineffectiveness of postwar reconstruction planning for Iraq in 2003.20

The issue of coordination can be seen as an important focus of Thomas Barnetts vision of foreign policy. In such vision, Barnett argued that the distinction between military force and administrative tasks should be an important part of US policy. In that regard, both proposed departments, named by Barnett as the Leviathan force and the system administrators, will work on creating favorable environment for US interests and thus, can be considered as a part of the national security policy. The support for the creation of an administrative force can be seen through the problems associated with post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq, and the subsequent upsurge of recommendations on how to improve the system.21

In that regard, it can be stated that the differentiating the tasks and the responsibilities of different agencies can be seen among the first steps in improving the policymaking process. The change in paradigm might imply the switch from the threat and force stimuli in shaping policies toward cooperation and rationality. The latter dopes not imply that states should not seek their self-interests. The main point is that policymakers should acknowledge that it would be more effective and rational to seek those self-interests through cooperation and institutionalization.

Conclusion

The present paper outlined the connection between the challenges in national security policymaking processes and realist and liberal theories of international relations. The paper argued that many of the challenges faced by the United States are caused by the attachment to the realist paradigm. The blur between the goals of foreign policy and national security policy was also attributed to such challenges. The paper outlined that the liberal paradigm can be a more suitable framework for national security decision making. The practical implications can be seen through the creation of administrative forces through institutionalized cooperation with other states. Cooperation and rational decisions should be the stimuli for the creation of national security policies, rather than threat and force.

References

Barnett, Thomas P. M. The Pentagons New Map : War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 2004.

Barnett, Thomas P. M. Blueprint for Action : A Future Worth Creating. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 2005.

Bolton, M. Kent. U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking after 9/11 : Present at the Re-Creation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008.

Freyberg-Inan, Annette. What Moves Man : The Realist Theory of International Relations and Its Judgment of Human Nature Suny Series in Global Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.

Kolodziej, Edward A. Security and International Relations Themes in International Relations. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Ray, Aswini K. Western Realism and International Relations : A Non-Western View. New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2004.

Sarkesian, Sam C., John Allen Williams, and Stephen J. Cimbala. Us National Security : Policymakers, Processes, and Politics. 4th ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008.

The Government Department at Dartmouth, Faculty: Michael Matnduno. Web.

United States Government, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues: National Security Policy and Strategy. Web.

Footnotes

  1. Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Stephen J. Cimbala, Us National Security : Policymakers, Processes, and Politics, 4th ed. (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008), 3.
  2. Annette Freyberg-Inan, What Moves Man : The Realist Theory of International Relations and Its Judgment of Human Nature, Suny Series in Global Politics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 64.
  3. Ibid., 64.
  4. Edward A. Kolodziej, Security and International Relations, Themes in International Relations (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 129.
  5. Aswini K. Ray, Western Realism and International Relations : A Non-Western View (New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2004), 5.
  6. Kolodziej.
  7. The Government Department at Dartmouth, Faculty: Michael Matnduno. Web.
  8. Freyberg-Inan, 66.
  9. Thomas P. M. Barnett, The Pentagons New Map : War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 2004).
  10. M. Kent Bolton, U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking after 9/11 : Present at the Re-Creation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008), 169.
  11. Sarkesian, Williams, and Cimbala.
  12. United States Government, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues: National Security Policy and Strategy. Web.
  13. Ibid., 130.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Sarkesian, Williams, and Cimbala.
  16. Freyberg-Inan, 69.
  17. Sarkesian, Williams, and Cimbala.
  18. Kolodziej, 155.
  19. Thomas P. M. Barnett, Blueprint for Action : A Future Worth Creating (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 2005), 17.
  20. United States Government.
  21. Ibid.

Brazil and the United States Relations

Introduction

Brazil is the most powerful country in the South American continent. Its social-economic status evokes the diplomatic enthusiasm of the United States of America[1]. To determine a countrys status in the sphere of global and regional leadership, three dimensions are critical to examine. These include territorial, economic, and military controls[2]. Relations between Brazil and the United States have been generally amiable and at worst somewhat adversarial in the past. As of lately the relationship, is even more strained? The current Obama administration has not yet addressed the alleged accusations of espionage towards Dilma Rousseff, Brazils president. This paper seeks to discuss the political, social, and economic relationship between the two nations from the 1950s to date.

How did the conflicts begin?

The conflict between Brazil and the United States was evidently prevalent in the 1950s. During this time, the Brazilian government adopted a Capitalist governance system. The main cause of disagreement between the two nations was based on political priorities. The United States insisted that Brazil should conduct a considerable amount of work in all spheres, especially in the military and political frontage. However, Brazil had the opposite opinion[3]. Vargas, the president at that time, focused more on economic development than on the military and political issues[4]. Ironically, the same issues he chose to ignore led to his alleged suicide.

Americans opposition to Brazils development agenda

Nonetheless, even his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek, was determined to enhance Brazils international status in the eyes of Americans[5]. Brazils aspiration to be a global political and economic giant did not find approval in the eyes of the United States. Nonetheless, soon after coming to power in 1956, Juscelino Kubitschek made and supported the industrialization efforts[6]. Brazil was seeking economic liberation in the late 50s and this did not favor the United States interests in the country. In 1958, the president proposed his countrys withdrawal from the Pan-American Operation[7]. Later on, in 1959, Brazil terminated its association with the International Monetary Fund and defiantly re-establishing its commercial ties with the Soviet Union[8].

Brazils foreign policies posed a threat to the US

These events proved that the nation was gradually becoming a reputable global authority. The Brazilian foreign policies were founded on national interests and this was made clear by the countrys resistance to sanctions against Cuba[9]. Brazil enjoyed an economic and diplomatic relationship with Cuba. Brazil under the leadership of president Goulart also reinstated its diplomatic associations with the Soviet Union and its trade with China resumed[10]. These events were progressively destroying the relationship between the US and Brazil.

Effects of Brazils foreign policies on American agenda in the region

As if to disappoint the US, the Brazilian government declined the support of the invasion of Cuba. The United States was worried by Brazils Nationalist measures enacted by president Goulart[11]. At this point, the relationships between the two countries were already weakening. The tense relationships between the United States and Brazil were getting out of hand. The North American business community intervened in the internal struggles in Brazil and the situation worsened leading to the coup détat in 1964[12]. This marked the fall of Goulart and the rise of General Humberto Castelo Branco. At this point, the United States was not interested in restoring democracy in Brazil. Rather they were interested in transforming Brazil into a bulwark against Cuban influence in the region[13].

Brazils Relationship with the Clinton and Bushs administration

In the 1990s, the rivalry between the two nations was very clear. During the time of Clintons presidency, launching the anti-narcotics strategy, President Cardoso, was inviting presidents to the region to form an economic unit[14]. This was a threat to the relationships between the two countries. Nonetheless, during President Lulas tenure, US-Brazil relationships improved[15]. This was influenced by the Brazilian presidents quest for a positive bilateral relationship with the US. However, President Lula [16]continued to support the economic unity for his region in order to improve Brazils bargaining power against the US[17].

Brazilians current perception of the US and the espionage reports

Brazil believes that the United States of America can be either a prime supporter or a prime obstacle to its long-term achievements as a global leader in 2012[18]. The country worries that the US feels threatened by the possibility of its economic independence[19]. They suspect that the US will do everything possible to ensure that this will not happen and this is already being experienced with the frustrations experienced in the Mercosur project.

The recent point of conflict between the two countries is about the espionage reports[20]. Brazil has expressed its displeasure and fear of its right to sovereignty being breached. The documents leaked by a former National security contractor, Edward Snowden, have raised controversy between the two nations. The espionage reports show that the surveillance began a month before the current President Enrique Pena Nieto took office. This has led to a standoff between Brazil and the United States in a new era of Obamas administration.

Conclusion

To understand the conflicts between Brazil and the US, this research has identified Brazils social-economic and political position in the South American continent. The paper further explains in detail how the conflict began providing facts of its development in chronological order. In the paper, Americas displeasure in Brazilians development strides is clearly shown. In addition, the foreign policies that the US disapproved from the inception of their enactment are discussed. Lastly, the paper reviews the relationships between the countries in the recent past.

  1. Larison, Daniel. Fixing the U.S.-Brazil Relationship. Theamericanconservative. 2104.
  2. Porter, Keith. The Relationship of the United States with Brazil. About. 2014.
  3. Alberto, Luiz. Brazil and the United States: from dependency to equality. Opendemocracy. 2003.
  4. Alberto, Luiz. Brazil and the United States: from dependency to equality. Opendemocracy. 2003.
  5. Alberto, Luiz. Brazil and the United States: from dependency to equality. Opendemocracy. 2003.
  6. Weisbrot, Mark. U.S. Relations with Brazil and South America Still Worsening. Center for Economic and Policy Research. 2013.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Farnsworth, Eric. U.S., Brazil Search for Equilibrium in an Unstable Relationship. World Politics Review. 2013.
  10. Farnsworth, Eric. U.S., Brazil Search for Equilibrium in an Unstable Relationship. World Politics Review. 2013.
  11. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Weaver. Regions and Powers. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 67-79.
  12. Hirst, Monica. The United States and Brazil: a Long Road of Unmet Expectations. (New York: Routledge, 2005), 56-89.
  13. Amanda, Earley. Brazils love-hate relationship with the United States. Amanda Earley. 2009.
  14. Hirst, Monica. Brazil as an intermediate state and regional power: action, choice, and responsibilities, International Affairs 82, no. 1 (2006): 23.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Weaver. Regions and Powers. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 67-79.
  17. Russell, Jim. Geopolitics of Talent: the United States vs. Brazil. Psmag. 2013.
  18. Wertheimera, Linda. As Brazil Grows, U.S. Refits Relationship. Npr. 2012.
  19. Hoffman, Stanley. The Foreign Policy the US Needs, The New York Review of books 53, no. 13 (2006): 106.
  20. Porter, Keith. The Relationship of the United States with Brazil. About. 2014.

Bibliography

Amanda, Earley. Brazils love-hate relationship with the United States. Amanda Earley. Web.

Alberto, Luiz. Brazil and the United States: from dependency to equality. Opendemocracy. Web.

Farnsworth, Eric. U.S., Brazil Search for Equilibrium in an Unstable Relationship. World Politics Review. 

Larison, Daniel. Fixing the U.S.-Brazil Relationship. Theamericanconservative. 

Buzan, Barry, and Ole Weaver. Regions and Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Hirst, Monica. Brazil as an intermediate state and regional power: action, choice, and responsibilities. International Affairs 82, no. 1 (2006): 21-24.

Hirst, Monica. The United States and Brazil: a Long Road of Unmet Expectations. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Hoffman, Stanley. The Foreign Policy the US Needs. The New York Review of books 53, no. 13 (2006): 102-123.

Porter, Keith. The Relationship of the United States with Brazil. About. Web.

Russell, Jim. Geopolitics of Talent: United States vs. Brazil. Psmag. 

Weisbrot, Mark. U.S. Relations with Brazil and South America Still Worsening. Center for Economic and Policy Research. Web.

Wertheimera, Linda. As Brazil Grows, U.S. Refits Relationship. Npr. Web.

US Policy During 1967 and 1973 Middle East Wars

Introduction

Beginning with the 1948 War of Independence, four conventional wars were waged between Israel and her neighbors. The two great victors of the Second World War, the U.S., and the Soviet Union had become archenemies in the Cold War and both were anxious to spread their conflicting social visions everywhere that mattered, even if only for propaganda purposes back home. In varying degrees, consequently, both were involved in all four wars by benign neglect, implicit support, abrogation of United Nations resolutions, intervention, or outright arms supply.

This paper covers the U.S. role in the 1967 and 1973 wars. American strategy and policy were influenced by events leading up to the emergence of the modern Israeli state and continue to manifest themselves in the intractable low-intensity conflict around the periphery of Israel up to contemporary times. In brief, these influences were:

  • Muslim invasions and the subsequent reconquest.
  • Filling the power vacuum left by the demise of the British Empire.
  • Counterbalancing Soviet and in general, Communist influence and expansionism, as in Europe and East Asia.
  • Accommodating a strong Jewish-American lobby and compensating for having done nothing during the Holocaust of World War II by supporting the restoration and security of a Jewish homeland.
  • Creating and sustaining a special relationship with the only society in the Middle East that shares the liberal-democratic and Judeo-Christian traditions of American culture.
  • Securing access to supplies of crude oil from the Persian Gulf, primarily for the U.S. but also for the industrialized and developing nations in Europe and Asia.

The special relationship between Israel and the U.S. notwithstanding, American Presidents from Truman till Obama have pursued the chimera of a two-state solution despite the indefensibility of externally-drawn borders, the dependence of Palestinians on Israel for jobs and trade, and Arab/Muslim resentment at more than a thousand years of defeats at the hands Christian armies.

Prologue: Pre-Independence and the First Two Wars

The Arab-Muslim nations of the Middle East are very stubborn about the legitimacy of their claim to Palestine because, for over a thousand years, the Holy Land was part of one Muslim empire or another. As of 750 A.D., Muslim invasions had reached east to India, north to the Caucasus, and west to the walls of Austria, to southern Italy, and even southern France. From then on, the empires went into inexorable decline. But the Holy Land had never been permanently retaken despite numerous Crusades blessed by the Pope. The last Muslim empire, the Ottomans, were vanquished only in 1917 for the folly of siding with the Kaisers Germany. Hence, Muslim memories of the grand empire are bitter for being less than a century old.

All contemporary Muslim-Arab rhetoric conveniently ignores Catholic and Orthodox to the Holy Places and prior ownership by the Jews for all previous recorded history.

America inherited the British propensity for supporting the re-establishment of a Jewish state while attempting to be even-handed about the civil rights of the Palestinians. After the Allied victory in World War I, the League of Nations handed the UK the British Mandate of Palestine: to establish the political and economic institutions that would lead to the establishment of the Jewish national home but with due safeguards for the civil and religious rights of all those already resident irrespective of race or religion.

This ideal bore within itself the seeds of intractable conflict. As the chief supporter of Israel in contemporary times, the U.S. became embroiled in conflicting claims by Palestinians and the Israeli nation to ownership of (or at least, the right to reside in) the West Bank, historically part of the Holy Land.

It was to the Zionists that Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917 affirming the commitment of His Majestys government for a Jewish national home.

It is this same two-state idea that the U.S. embraced beginning with the UN partition plan and sought to implement in peace talks not only subsequent to the 1967 and 1973 wars but at every sponsored summit between the belligerents since then.

Two important aspects of this externally-decided partition are that: a) Jewish and Palestinian territories virtually intermingled; and, b) the all-important city of Jerusalem, having equal Jewish and Muslim populations, was made a corpus separatum (literally, a separate body) under UN administration. There is no historical precedent for such porous and indefensible boundaries between two implacably suspicious and hostile peoples, even if one overlooks the fact that there were almost as many Muslims as Jews in the designated Israeli homeland. The second, the status of Jerusalem, pleased no one, least of all Jews for whom the capital since ancient times had been the lodestar that unified their culture during millennia of the first and second Diasporas. But at least the Zionist leaders were content to get recognition from the UN for their right to an independent homeland.

The U.S. was involved in only a minor way in the War of Independence. For a year before the December 1947 implementation of the partition plan and up to the declaration of independence in May 1948, thousands of civilians were killed or injured. But America did not intervene to stop civilian casualties or forestall intervention by surrounding nations. In the end, however, the civil unrest and the flight of the Palestinian elite abroad impelled America to withdraw support for the partition plan, thence fostering the illusion among both Palestinians and the Arab Liberation Army that they could de facto void the UN-designated boundaries on the battlefield[1].

More importantly, then-President of the U.S.A. Harry Truman became the first chief executive to recognize the state of Israel mere minutes after its declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. This he did out of his own personal belief in the Zionist vision, the widespread sympathy of the American public towards a Jewish homeland, pressure from Zionist lobbyists, and financial support from businessmen of Jewish extraction during the election campaign of 1948. This is the first instance of the multiple influences on American relationships with the fledgling state.

In the process, Truman overrode the 1946 recommendation of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry for a two-state solution, as well as the opposition of his own cabinet members George Marshall (Secretary of State ) and James Forrestal (Secretary of Defense), the last based on fears that Arab resentment would cut off the supply of oil to America[2] [3] [4] [5].

The United States intervened more explicitly than in 1948 in the second of the Arab-Israeli wars, often called the Suez Crisis of 1956. This took the form of, first, withdrawing promised funding for the huge Aswan Dam project in a fit of pique over Egypt recognizing the Communist Peoples Republic of China. Later on, President Eisenhower demanded that the Tripartite Alliance agree to a ceasefire and withdrawal after France, Britain, and Israel had already overrun Egyptian positions in the Sinai. America and Canada together used public pronouncements and, in the formers case, the threat to dump Sterling Bonds on the market to force the UK to its will.

To forestall Soviet communism from the Middle East, the U.S. tried to conclude the Baghdad Pact. Britain was one of the parties since America was not a member of the Pact, but the U.S. worked behind the scenes to support the creation of this pact. The pact did not work. On the contrary, some of the targeted states, most importantly Egypt, moved closer to the Soviet Union. With Soviet backing, for example, Egypt concluded an arms deal with Czechoslovakia in 1956. Irked by his former colonial masters, Nasser moved even closer into the Communist orbit by welcoming Russian military advisers for what would become a long stay.

Confronted with such diplomatic and geopolitical setbacks, the U.S. devoted the rest of the decade and the 1960s to courting and supporting more moderate and friendlier states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Another declared aim was to forestall any kind of instability in the region which might precipitate an invasion or political intervention by the Russians.

Lyndon Johnson and the Six-Day War

In the ensuing decades, including the 1960s, all the influences noted in the case of Truman above (see page 4) held except for a personal belief in the Zionist ideal.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, America could count solely on the compliant Shah of Iran to try and stem the tide of Russian expansionism towards vassal states possessed of crude oil and warm-water ports. In Asia, France waged the fight against the Communist stalking horse in Vietnam, the Viet Minh, while Britain put down their Malayan counterparts in their successful conduct of the Emergency.

After Eisenhower, it was left up to John F. Kennedy to continue the space race with the Soviets and face down Khrushchev in both Europe and South America, the latter in order to enforce the Monroe doctrine. On taking over at Kennedys untimely death, former Vice-President Lyndon pursued the Vietnam War even more vigorously and held on to the policy of containing Soviet influence in the Middle East by striving for stability in the region. This meant having to tread a thin tightrope between supporting Israel and the neutral or more moderate Arab states such as Jordan. For the sake of keeping the Soviets at bay and courting other important oil-exporting sheikdoms and emirates in the region, Johnson could not afford to be openly pro-Israel even when hostilities broke out in 1967. This effectively precluded arms sales to Israel even when Nasser increased his populist bombast and forecast the annihilation of Israel by the combined armies of the United Arab Republic. Only two years after the Six-Day War, by way of example, did the U.S. finally deliver the first of nearly 300 Phantom F-4s, the most advanced long-range, all-weather, air superiority fighter-bomber in the arsenal. For balance, Egypt did receive 75 Phantoms eventually, long after Yom Kippur had been waged and lost. In contrast, the Shah of Iran received brand-new units at the same time as the U.S. Air Force.

Having no control over the Arab belligerents, the Johnson administration could not very well prevent the impending war ostensibly precipitated by Egypts closing the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping. In May 1967, even as UN Secretary U Thant went to Cairo to mediate the crisis and prevent full-scale war, the Johnson administration dispatched Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Eugene Rostow to negotiate for a hiatus so that fighting could be avoided; asked Egypt to send a senior government official to Washington to try and work out a settlement; and received Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban. In the latter case, American military and intelligence analysts could not themselves find proof for the new official line of Israel that a general Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian attack was imminent within 24 hours. Against the skepticism of his Cabinet (Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, particularly), Johnson opted to support the Israeli contention. He went on the Hot Line to Russian Secretary-General Alexey Kosygin on May 27, urging the latter to rein in the Egyptians. At dawn Egyptian time, the Russian Ambassador asked to meet Nasser to read him the letter from Kosygin that the Soviet Union would not support any operation that would be perceived as launching the war with Israel. Three days later, Nasser agreed to schedule a negotiation trip by his Vice-President to the States and scheduled this for June 7. Events overtook that particular act of diplomacy[6] [7].

As soon as the war started, the U.S. pushed for simple cease-fire agreements through the UN Security Council. This happened to be timed after Israel had already demolished the opposing air forces, taken the West Bank and the Sinai peninsula, won the Golan Heights and seemed poised to march on Damascus. Whereupon, Syria pleaded for a ceasefire under UN auspices.

At the end of the blitzkrieg, Israel had not only sole control of Jerusalem but, for the first time in modern history, contiguous borders that were eminently defensible and secure, in marked contrast to the partition plan of 1947 which Palestinians (including those who had already fled abroad) wanted to revert to. On the other hand, an estimated 600,000 Palestinians remained in East Jerusalem and the Golan after a third of the population had fled the fighting by going abroad. Offered Israeli citizenship twice, virtually all refused and would prove troublesome in peacetime.

America has been credited with backroom negotiations to fudge the issue of returning land conquered during the war.

It was in Israels interest that the U. S. did not want to include statements such as Israel must evacuate the territories it just won. The Soviet Union, patron of Egypt and Syria, did not agree with the ceasefires the U.S. pressed Israel to effect (with Jordan on June 7, Egypt on June 8, and Syria on June 9) but when Russia saw how its allies were losing, it had to accept the agreements. Eventually, the ceasefire took hold and the negotiations for a peace settlement started. The two superpowers agreed that they both want the region to be stable in the future but disagreed on the terms of the settlement. The settlement was to be peace for land. Thus, the U.S. promised that Israel would give the lands back (but not necessarily all lands) if Arab states recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. The Soviets pushed for Israel to give all lands back first.

Perhaps, the reason the U.S. did not push Israel to return all conquered lands immediately was that the Johnson administration realized allying with Israel remained the only other option (aside from the Shah who then sat on the Persian throne) for achieving its national interestpreventing the Middle East from totally becoming a Soviet sphere of influence. Unhappily, the frontline states were anti-American before and after the war: viz., Syria and Nasser in Egypt. Israels enemies were perhaps dismayed that the U.S.S.R. had not done more to help them win the war but since the U.S. was clearly on Israels side, Egypt and Syria essentially had no choice but to appeal for continued Soviet support, especially in matters of replacing aircraft and other equipment lost during the Six-Day War. The U.S. attempts to achieve lasting peace in the region  via the Rogers and Jarring plans  tried to be evenhanded but these failed.

Nixon, Kissinger, and the Yom Kippur War

The surprise attack on Yom Kippur of 1973 tested American resolve to support Israel against a Soviet sponsor that had trained and supplied the Arabs with the very latest Russian missiles designed to knock out all advanced American warplanes and tank models. This resolve was all the more necessary because Arab rhetoric expressly wanted to wipe out the Jewish presence in the Middle East.

In the Yom Kippur War, American apprehensions about oil supply finally came true when the OPEC members embargoed oil shipments to the U.S. and its European allies. This caused hyperinflation and distinct hardship for the population. Despite also having to endure a quadrupling of crude oil prices initially and multiple jumps up to the peak of $155 per barrel in early 2008, the U.S. not only re-supplied Israel but raised levels of aid to billions of dollars per annum every year since 1974.

American support for the integrity of Israel manifested itself in two forms: substantial annual foreign aid voted by a sympathetic Congress and access to advanced weaponry. Beginning the year after Independence and up to 1974 when the bills for aircraft and other equipment losses in the Yom Kippur fighting came due, annual U.S. aid to Israel ranged from $35.1 million to as much as $2.6 billion[8]. Over that quarter of a century, the cumulative influx came to $5.76 billion.

(Note that half of that twenty-year total was granted in just one year, to replace the losses of 1973.) And the pace of both military assistance and economic aid continued to accelerate: mostly in excess of $2 billion from 1978 and, starting 1985, over $3 billion annually. Quite clearly, the U.S. Congress and military were not averse to showing support for Israel, regardless of what other nations might think.

In the years leading up to Yom Kippur, the Israeli Air Force became the largest non-U.S. user of the Phantom, arguably the dominant fighter-bomber of its time. The F-4s were first deployed during the Israeli-Egyptian War of Attrition of 1969 and 1970 and helped make up for the aging fleet of French Dassault Mirages which France refused to continue supplying by then. But the Soviets, Egyptians, and Syrians had also absorbed their tactical lessons from the Six-Day War. On launching the surprise attack in 1973 aiming to recover all the territory lost in 1967, Egypts Sadat cannily installed interlocking batteries of Soviet-supplied surface-to-air missiles (the most modern in the Soviet inventory: SA-6 Gainful, SA-3 Goa, SA-2 Guideline, ZSU-23-4, Strela 2) to neutralize the expected IAF sorties and packed the frontline troops with man-portable anti-tank missiles to devastate the three Israeli armored divisions expected to counterattack.

On the Golan Heights, Syrias Assad relied on an armored fist of five tank divisions supported by no less than 188 batteries of artillery. That the two Israeli brigades managed to hold on until reinforcements could arrive was nothing short of miraculous. All this Russian armament shows how high the stakes were that America needed to counter with nothing less than an emergency airlift.

By the third day of the war, on October 9, Russia began air- and sealift of replacement tanks for losses taken principally by Syria. America had till then supplied just antiaircraft and anti-tank ammunition out of the complacency that the superior equipment of the IDF would eventually prevail on the battlefield. But that same day, the Israeli cabinet realized that the losses of aircraft and pilots had been devastating. Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, therefore, ordered the preparation of 13 Jericho missiles and Phantoms with nuclear warheads. Since the Israelis were careful to let American observers catch on to what they were doing, Foreign Secretary Henry Kissinger alerted President Nixon who immediately approved Operation Nickel Grass, the airlift to replace all Israeli equipment losses. It is also reported that Kissinger deliberately warned Sadat that his foes were about to go nuclear.

On October 15, Israel did the unexpected: drive between two Egyptian armies, cross the Suez Canal and begin an encircling movement of the Egyptian Third Army. At one point, the Israelis were just 110 miles from Cairo. Now, Russia had an incentive to join the U.S. in asking the UN Security Council to call for a ceasefire. This was duly approved by a vote of 14-0 on October 22 and called for all units to stay in place by 6:52 PM Israel time that day. Knowing what it might do to the Egyptians and their Soviet masters, Kissinger let slip to Golda Meir that no satellites could monitor troop movements in the dark and that sporadic shooting was always to be expected on either side after a ceasefire.

Thus encouraged, the Israeli crossing force continued to move and by the next day, had completed encircling the Third Army. In the aftermath, Chief of Staff Alexander Haig and Kissinger found themselves in the odd position (because shared with the Soviets) of prohibiting the encircling Israeli force from decimating the Third Army but only because the two hoped to increase leverage with Egypt and thus lessen Soviet influence. Later events, including a flurry of peace pacts and unilateral return of the Sinai to Egypt, proved these men of President Nixon absolutely right.

Epilogue

Despite the best of intentions and continuous infusions of military and economic aid, the U.S. has not been able to leverage its relationship with Israel to bring about ironclad national security for that country and lasting peace with the peoples that reside in and around the Holy Land. Territorial concessions by Israel in treaty after treaty and the fading of the Soviet competition for hegemony in the Middle East notwithstanding, America finds itself in the situation of pursuing equity for Palestinians that undermines the national security of Israel. Ultimately, American influence on Israel has therefore historically and inherently carried the seeds of conflict with the national security of Israel.

References

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. 2008. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel.

Laurens, Henry. 2005. Paix et Guerre au Moyen-Orient. Armand Colin.

Lenczowski, George. 1990. American Presidents and the Middle East, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Lowe, Vaughan, Adam Roberts, Jennifer Welsh, and Dominik Zaum. The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice Since 1945. London: Oxford University Press. 2008.

McCullough, David. 1992. Truman. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Oren, Michael. 2002. 1967: The Unwanted War That Made the Middle East. The Commonwealth Club of California.

Quandt, William B. 2005. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict Since 1967. Los Angeles: University of California.

Truman, Harry (1948). Memo recognizing the state of Israel. Truman Presidential Museum & Library. Web.

Truman, Margaret. 1973. Harry S. Truman. New York: William Morrow and Co.

The United States Involvement with Weak States

Introduction

The challenge of weak and fragile states is one of the worst problems facing the developed world in the 21st century. The prevalence of weak states is a foreign policy which has proved to be a serious threat to international peace at large. For instance, the weak and failing states have been the main impetus behind poor economic performance, acts of terrorism, civil war and gross atrocities in some nations of the world. Furthermore, these weak states have threatened the very survival of their own citizens let alone the instability caused in the international platform. Those states which have proved to be vulnerable of this challenge, the international community, major superpowers and humanitarian organizations alongside other nongovernmental organizations have been on the fore front to address the problem in the last two decades.

Although there was a drastic reduction in the on violent disputes between states especially after the end of the Cold War, there are still serious atrocities within states which have been considered to be weak, fragile or failing. There is a very high causality rate which may not be compared to a real battle zone where two states are at war with each other. In the recent past, the public domain has been dominated by such countries like Iraq and Afghanistan on their inability to control internal peace. However, the actual challenge does not lie per se with these weak states or the neighboring countries. It is more likely that the international arena will still have to encounter increasing and unending episodes of conflicts which arise from weak states especially if the challenge is not brought on board for rapid redress. The states which have a track record of peace and instability are even more likely to suffer more consequences associated with this state of affairs. Hence, it is against this backdrop that the U.S government has been up in arms to intervene on the affairs of weak states with the motive of having a hand in controlling the potential threat which these fragile states may pose1

This paper attempts to explore the motives which draw U.S. to intervene into weak states with specific reference to historical situations.

Characteristics of a state: Strong and weak states

In a strong state, the government of the day is in a position to plan and provide for the needs of its people both in the short and long run. The social, political and economic environment is made conducive for the population and all aspects of investing into the future are well catered for2

On the other hand, a weak state may not easily predict the environment due to a very high degree of instability which exists.

Social trust forms one of the most vital backbones of a democratic state. Unless citizens can afford to lay a formidable trust and create a harmonious environment for themselves, it may equally be cumbersome to pursue certain principles and ideals of societal well being. Indeed, the process of solving internal conflicts can only be a success if this trust is well built among all groups; whether minority ones or those rightfully elected to represent others in governance. This will be the only way to deter dispute even before it breaks out.

One of the many demerits of weak states is the conspicuous lack of social trust which is a necessary ingredient to stability. Fragile and failing states are characterized with inadequate social trust which is very much needed in sustaining different tribes and ethnic groups, communities, religious groups and even the society at large. Those states which are socially, politically and economically fragile may not be able to transcend these enormous qualities. Whenever a society is void of trust, it will almost be close to impossibility to build a politically stable government because consensus will ever be hard to achieve. This is why most weak states are deficient of democratic ideals although they may argue to pursue the same. Therefore, a weak state can only enhance democracy if social trust is put in place. Unfortunately, the weak states are often not in a position to harness this trust leading to their eventual failure and downfall. A case study of Palestine and Israel amid the conflicts which has reigned for centuries is perhaps a striking example of failing states and how social trust can be of great help in building up these war-torn nations. Negotiations in these regions have been dominated by state issues. Needless to say, it is evident that the most important ingredient required towards a formidable peace deal is missing and has deterred any possible success for a considerably long period of time. For instance, the transfer of the settlers on the side of Israel is in fact a case in point where lack of social trust is playing a crucial role. The Palestinian side is not secure or safe of this either. There is the known Arab Street.

The influences arising from both the Israeli and Palestinian states may be powerful although the overall impact as far as building peace and stability in the region is concerned is almost null and void. In practice, there is very minimal focus which has been given to the local people as instruments of building trust within both states. In any case, the years when Bill Clinton was still in office as the U.S president witnessed several failed attempts to negotiate peace deals and this has persisted to the present without significant success.

As mentioned earlier, the weak states lack the basic democratic ideals which are necessary in managing peace and stability. The fragile and failing states have mainly put so much effort on building the states and ignored the need to focus on the instruments of peace which can promise sustained stability. These administrations have also failed to recognize that unless initiatives are put in place to enhance societal trust, internal conflicts will be the order of the day.

The civil society is one of the major pillars through which peace can be promoted. Most of these weak states have either ignored or do not have civil societies through which a platform for peace can be erected. In some weak states, the civil society has played the dismal role of advocating for peace and democracy and in many cases; they are not permitted to advance their activities beyond this point. Hence, overlooking the momentous role which can played by the civil society is another characteristic of most weak states.

The intervention of the U.S government in the administration of weak states has seen some progress being made in spite of a myriad of challenges including resistance from some weak states3

Moreover, the internal efforts by some leaders in weak states to facelift social trust and peace building have equally met resistance from the government of the day. Some of these leaders who tend to advocate for democracy have been tortured or even imprisoned in the course of seeking social justice. Unfortunately, the failed administrations of the weak states do not only leave an impact at the local level but the negative effects spill over to the neighboring states. The Mubarak regime in Egypt is perhaps an excellent example in this case. This government has curtailed all the efforts necessary towards realizing a true and authenticated democracy. The freedom of the press is greatly at stake. The media is highly regulated by the government and is not allowed to report or criticize the regime in a manner likely to mean it is not performing well. The president also imprisoned his political opponent, Amr Noor, a vivid indication of a failed democracy and hence a failed state. This is a very common feature with most weak states.

Another example worth noting is the case of the Russian president Vladimir Putin. He had restrained the operation of the civil society in this country and they could hardly perform to their peak. For instance, they are no longer funded as it is supposed to be therefore minimizing their level of operations and influence.

The abolition of the activities of civil society is indeed on one f the most viable tools which most weak states use to advance their atrocities. It is important that the foundations of democracy are not just confined within the right to vote or the establishment of institutions which stand for democracy. Besides, a working judiciary or even an accountable electoral body may not promise much as far as democracy is concerned. There are other underlying essentials which come in handy and which are required for real democracy to flourish. Unfortunately, weak states are yet to reach this level of democratic understanding like those states which have already left a mark in their democratic practices4

Even after apartheid was brought to an end, a country like South Africa is still not in a position to enhance peace through a facilitation process. It was the effort of non state actors which saw the country eventually holding elections in 1994 after a three year struggle to do so.

The U.S National Security Strategy has by far and large focused on the potential threat posed by weak and failing states. In any case, the weak states agenda has elicited a lot of debate. Security academics have argued that the weak and failing states have been the cause of concern when it comes to the risk of international peace and stability. It is out of these weak states that weapons of mass destruction are easily used. In addition, acts of terror as well as proliferation of small arms are rampant in these states. Hence, security analysts have concluded that weak states act as vehicles for international peace threat. This was evident with the September 11, 2001 terror attacks involving the Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden has always remained to the chief suspect in the mastermind of the attack although he is still at large and has not been apprehended so far.

The actual cause of the 9/11 attacks has been conclusively established although some theories have been put forward in an attempt to explain why the Al Qaeda launched the attack. For example, there are those politicians who argue out that the main cause if the attack was poverty level which has continued to remain high in the Middle East region. Nevertheless, the Al Qaeda crew courtesy of Osama Bin Laden once said that the U.S occupation of the oil rich Saudi region was the main cause of the attack. Although efforts to control oil resources may be a likely explanation, it cannot be used conclusively as the sole reason why the attackers perpetrated the act.

US Interventions

Commercial interests

It is imperative and inevitable to explore the contemporary U.S foreign policy under President Obama in order to evaluate and conclude on the past and modern policy genetic traits. To begin with, the Obama administration has often reiterated that Islam is not a foe and that the war on terrorism has little to do with U.S engagement. Moreover, the U.S need to have a breathless pursuit over nuclear program alongside other issues5

There are a myriad of foreign policies as stipulated in the current administrative structure. From the previous analysis however, there is a silent question why U.S was interested in controlling Saudi Arabia. Was it a strategy to fight terrorism emerging from the Middle East? But then, is it only U.S facing the threat of terrorism in the contemporary world? Sincerely speaking, underlying interests contrary to the war against terror is evident here. The Al Qaeda under the guide of Osama Bin Laden ever claimed that the U.S administration had economic interests in Saudi Arabia due to the huge oil deposits. Although this may not be substantiated, some questions are still left unanswered

Ideological interests

The United States government and its people uphold strictly to the principle of democracy and rule of law. That is why political leadership is democratically elected into office by the people. Similarly, constitutional office bearers like the Supreme Court judges have to be appointed into office legally by keenly adhering to existing laws and statutes. Moreover, the Congress has the mandate to make or amend laws which then becomes legally binding to all citizens. The leadership synopsis is well understood by everybody and contravening of the law can be challenged through the judicial system.

This is a similar leadership arrangement in most democratic governments. To this end, critics of U.S aggression have always questioned the appointing authority in world governance. In other terms, why has the U.S government assumed total leadership over the world and more so on the weak and failing states? Who appointed or directed it to do so? It may indeed be a paradox for a country claiming to pursue democracy while totalitarian ideology is the top agenda in its international matters. The basic role of democracy is missing here. The main grievance is that of representation. The U.S has taken a representative role of governing the world. This has led to numerous protests which can be directly linked to U.S fatherhood spirit. A clear cut illustration of this can be traced back on the climate change and global warming debate.

As a precaution to reduce greenhouse emission believed to contribute significantly to global warming, countries of the world convened in Japan and unanimously agreed to stick to Kyoto protocol6

Unfortunately, U.S failed to honor the agreement despite being one of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases. Besides, the recently concluded Copenhagen talks on climate change ended in disillusionment with U.S not walking the talk as a world leader. Its foreign policies should have been handy at this time when the world is struggling to come into terms with the devastating effects of climate change which is yet to be experienced. Indeed, the weak and failing states have their own share of problems and challenges which they are contributing to the world just in a similar way to the U.S government. Hence, the concept of weak and failing states has been viewed by others as a pure U.S ideology to control the world7

Punishment

The ouster of Iraq president, Saddam Hussein from power appeared in the eyes of many as an act of punishment or revenge having fought and nearly won the Gulf War with George Bush (senior) and his allies. The initial claims were that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons and mass destruction and that he was in pursuit of manufacturing nuclear weapons8

This according to the U.S administration was a big threat to international peace and stability. In any case, Iraq had already been classified as a weak and failing state, a country which had failed to follow the ideals and fundamentals of democracy. However, even after his execution, there has been no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq up to date. There are still concerns whether this U.S aggression on Iraq was done in good faith or was just a form of punishment to an old foe.

Strategic Factor/World Police

The U.S government has often assumed the responsibility of the world police in articulating issues of international interest such acts of terrorism. For instance, the main reason why U.S has sometimes invented in the affairs of the weak and failing states is due to failed administrations in these countries and as a result, there is need to have an international watch dog in place to correct any possible messes which may arise from such uncouth administrations. The U.S government has quite often argued that these weak and failing states are the main centers of operation through which terror groups breed themselves before they spill over to other destinations in the world. Terror groups such as Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas have been blacklisted as potential threats to international peace and stability. Unless their operations are put under checks and balances, achieving sustainable global peace may just be an illusion. Therefore, the U.S government has done just that by playing the role of world police. Terror organizations are more likely to flourish where there are feeble legislations which cannot be enforced or absence of strict legislative framework to deal with acts of terrorism9

This is one sole reason why U.S took the initiative of attacking and destroying the Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan. Similarly, Saddam Hussein was ousted from power and eventually executed on the claims that he was harboring weapons of mass destruction as part of the U.S strategy to maintain world peace.

Humanitarian factor

Those who live within the regions classified as weak states are more likely to suffer from both acute and chronic illnesses due to high levels of poverty. As a result, mortality rate can be exceptionally high10

Such inhabitants are also more likely to have poor access to basic amenities and contemporary technology. Hence, they stand a higher chance of facing humanitarian crises than their counterparts in strong states. Therefore, the successive regimes in U.S have often engaged foreign spending on weak and failing states. One of the reasons why the U.S government has been intervening in the affairs of weakly run states is to provide the much needed humanitarian assistance to the worst affected populations11

For instance, the basic state infrastructure, fragile institutions and lack of basic necessities like healthcare have been on the U.S agenda as far as the foreign policy is concerned. Most weak and failing states have not been able to provide for their citizens who end up on the receiving end even as these governments elusively set up institutions to strengthen democracy. Transformational development in selected weak states has been top on the agenda as far its humanitarian aid to poor countries is concerned. Additionally, the U.S government has set up agencies like USAID to expedite the process of providing humanitarian assistance to the affected social groups as a result of poor governance. Furthermore, the weak states have been assisted to set up institutions which can investigate and eliminate terror groups. Nonetheless, such foreign assistance by U.S has elicited debate about foreign spending on matters of security and especially on states which have been categorized as weak12

Conclusion

In summing u this paper, it is imperative to underscore the fact that weak and failing states are indeed a real threat to world peace and instability and not only in developed countries like the United States. It is commonplace for most weak states to lack important instruments of democracy which are necessary for peaceful co-existence. For example, although governments in these states which have been classified as weak may set up institutions and enact legal frameworks to assist in the practice of democratic ideals, the impact is not significant owing to the fact that social trust and organs which can bring out the same have either been ignored or are non-existent. Nevertheless, the U.S motives on the affairs of weak states may by far and large varied. Needleless to say, sharp criticism has emerged on the foreign spending on weak states not just within the internal spheres of the U.S regime but also from external quarters. There are lots if doubts whether the U.S foreign policy is realistic or just an ideology to press the weaker states for selfish gains.

Footnotes

  1. Handel, I. Michael. 2007.
  2. Weinstein M. Jeremy, Porter John Edward and Eizenstat, E. Stuart. 2004.
  3. Max, Boot 2003.
  4. Max, Boot 2003.
  5. Wyler, Sun Liana. 2008.
  6. Feinberg, E. Richard. 1984.
  7. Rice, E. Susan and Carlos, Graff Corinne. 2010.
  8. Feinberg, E. Richard. 1984.
  9. Wyler, Sun Liana. 2008.
  10. Rice, E. Susan and Carlos, Graff Corinne. 2010.
  11. Logan, Justin and Preble, Christopher. 2006).
  12. Tilly, Charles. 2007.

Bibliography

Cordesman,H. Anthony, Frederiksen, S. Paul and Sullivan, D. Wiliam. Salvaging American defense: the challenge of strategic overstretch, Washington D.C.: Center for Strategic and International studies, 2007.

Feinberg, E. Richard. The Intemperate Zone, New York: Norton, 1984.

Handel, I. Michael. Weak states in the international system, London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. 2007.

Ingebritsen, Christine. Small states in international relations, Washington D.C.: University of Washington Press, 2006.

Logan, Justin and Preble, Christopher. Failed States and Flawed Logic: The Case Against a Standing Nation-Building Office, Policy Analysis, no. 560 (2006). Web.

Max, Boot. The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Rice, E. Susan and Carlos, Graff Corinne. Confronting poverty: weak states and U.S. national security, Washington D.C.: Pascual Brookings Institution Press, 2010.

Tilly, Charles. Coercion, Capital and European States: Ad 990  1992, New York: Wiley, John & Sons, 2007.

Weinstein M. Jeremy, Porter John Edward and Eizenstat, E. Stuart. On the Brink: Weak States and U.S. National Security, Washington DC: Center for Global Development, 2004.

Wyler, Sun Liana. Weak and Failing States: Evolving Security Threats and U. S. Policy, New York: Congressional Research service, 2008.