There are mixed public reactions on the 21st Century U.S foreign policy which may not be purely classified into any singly known international relations theory.
Besides, a sharp contrast between the Obama administration and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush is evident when the two administrations are compared. Hence, the hot pursuit to adopt a comprehensive realist/liberalist international relations theory is eminent and cannot be ignored either. The contemporary U.S foreign policy on National Security undoubtedly appears to strike a balance between realism and liberalism.
A critical and more pragmatic argument can be directed towards Obama’s attempt to move the U.S troops out of Iraq. He has equally been emphatic on the need to uphold the dignity of international organizations. Varied criticisms have followed with some perceiving it as a replica of Bush administration while others feeling that this is in favor of U.S capitalistic ideology.
To be precise however, proponents of this power strategy may see it as the most adept means of harmonizing foreign policy in a world which is politically at quagmire. This paper contrasts classic realism and liberalism with U.S foreign policy on National Security and whether the implications that can be drawn from the John Quincy statement are consistent with the demands of U.S National Security in the 21st century.
The global political ideologies and especially those touching foreign policies cannot be debated effectively without exploring their empirical influence. The exposition of the US foreign policy on national security is a worthy illustration of an international policy deeply infiltrating into nations of the world.
There has been growing global debate on such issues as the impacts of globalization, climate change and global warming as well as terrorism. The U.S government has played an upper hand in what most political analysts would call unrealistic and pre-eminent encroachment on private matters of other countries.
Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More In this respect, United States has taken a global dimension in emerging socio-political and economic issues. Moreover, even as the debate on the adopted national security policies heightens, less has been addressed in modern studies of political science.
Is the world conscious of this so called U.S foreign protectionist policy towards the less fortunate and disadvantaged nations? Or is the U.S foreign policy proposition beyond cheap publicity and primacy as purported by the opponents? Can this aggression towards foreign policy be empirically measured?
Realism, so to speak, would focus on the genuine creation of a justified, free and open administrative structures void of any form of coercion, intimidation or corrupted and misinterpreted rule of law.
It would also gear itself towards promotion of such systems politically perceived by majority as democratic (Lieber 29). Various forms of power that are cherished in democracy are exercised here and they are not limited to cultural, economic and technological power. The key objective in a realistic structure is to build, enhance and promote rather than subduing the weaker ones.
The means of harnessing power does not matter whatsoever provided that the accrued benefits belong to the state. In a sharp contrast though, the Obama administration may not be leaving an imprint of an indelible mark. As a result, it sharply contrasts with the Quincy statement that elevates the U.S policy on National Security as fair and justifies.
On the other hand, National Security that touches on liberalism primarily focuses on the initiation, care and universal promotion of liberal democratic governments which do not abet unjust human practices in disguise of security. There is inevitably strong foundation for the rule of law as well as in-fights among mature democracies like that of U.S. According to Walt (95), the 1980s witnessed a serious aggression between the U.S and the Soviet Union owing to the enmity that communism brought.
The political ideology of communism was a big threat to the Americans at this time. Ronald Reagan, a soldier during cold war was then implored by U.S to go to Washington and divert any possible threat that could be posed by communism.
We will write a custom Research Paper on US National Security and Foreign Policy specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Even as this was happening, the United States was highly alarmed at how Japan was growing economically. Unfortunately, Japan’s economic strategies failed and as a result, its economy slumped while U.S “…enjoyed eight years of robust economic growth…” (Walt 98). In a nut shell, U.S was in a hectic search for allies, bearing in mind that it had gained the super power status by this time.
It deployed a policy of “fit or quit” by embracing those who gave it support and punishing the “rogue ones”. Up to date, U.S has tirelessly and consistently attempted to persuade and convince several countries to acknowledge their “liberal capitalist world order” (Walt 108).
Recent events have shed more light on this debate. For example, the historical September 11, 2001 attack of the twin towers was a wake-up call in U.S; probably in the wrong direction altogether. Some political scientists referred to it as the “power of weakness” in the sense that the weapon that was used to shake this world power was merely a box cutter and a fellow ready to sacrifice his life.
This was like an impotent attack which surprisingly left too much pain and terror in this nation. How then did U.S react to this? Was the attack a national or global affair? The nation developed a desire to have full control of the terrorists and terror countries. Besides, it aimed at assimilating technological advancement for the sole purpose of solidifying its own power in the pretext of foreign policy. AS Garret (148) observes, the U.S government continued to act smart by playing lip service to democracy.
In addition, the U.S government was quite relieved when Communism collapsed. This meant one thing: its expansionist plan would be right on track, spreading its tentacles far and wide and upholding the super power status. Sincerely, this was about power, influence, control and dominance.
The U.S invasion of Iraq over the alleged weapons of mass destruction and consequent execution of Saddam Hussein was a vivid impact of its foreign policy on National Security. Lieber (231) notes that there are many advantages enjoyed when power and supremacy are on board. The very policy was adopted by U.S prior to the Iraqi War on terror.
The author further expounds that power does not guarantee influence all the time. It is the very reason why US did not get the simple majority support in the Iraqi War. The nine out of fifteen votes could not be reached by the U.N Security Council to allow this super power stamp its authority on Iraq.
Surprisingly, even those countries who were mostly assisted by U.S like Chile and Mexico were reluctant to offer their support. This must have been a lesson to the U.S sycophants and political technocrats. According to MacLean, the infamous foreign policies are trivial ideologies to harness power, primacy and influence (123).
Not sure if you can write a paper on US National Security and Foreign Policy by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The fact that U.S has a veto power, she went ahead and attacked Iraq. This was a “foreign policy” that left thousands of innocent Iraqis in dire need of humanitarian assistance. The innocent civilians are yet to come to terms with the crisis that followed after the war.
What about the U.S allegations that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, he was later executed on the basis of these claims. Surprisingly, the label ‘weapons of mass destruction’ has not been proved to date. The world is still skeptical why the Bush administration attacked Iraq.
In order to further explore the validity of Quincy’s statement, it is imperative to investigate the politics of constructivism in relation to National Security.
It will assist in shedding more light to the emerging, yet ever changing conventional practices related to human rights, sovereign status of democracies and the application of justice (Fukuyama 176). Nonetheless, has the Obama administration been on the persuasive end to solicit for international support as a power pyramid plan? Some proponents of these foreign policies may perhaps be right.
However, strategic foreign policy agenda that is free of political undertones is a welcome idea. Lieber argues that “…a grand strategy put into practice can be as important as the substance of that strategy…” (86). If the U.S foreign policy on National Security is anything to go by, then the empirical outcome of these strategies should be applauded by all and sundry.
Mandelbaum provokes some thoughtful insight when he asserts that “if United States provides useful…services…to the world, why does…foreign policy provoke such frequent, widespread and bitter criticism?” (XVIII). The author further elaborates the September 11 terrorist act which was overwhelmingly condemned by U.S. Although acts of terror are as old as mankind, this appeared as the climax of all acts of terrorism in U.S history.
The underlying rationale why the Al Qaeda launched this terror move was to topple the Saudi Arabia monarch in power which was a close associate of the U.S.
What about the Obama administration? Does it uphold the salient features of the John Quincy statement? Firstly, the Obama administration has often reiterated that Islam is not a foe and that the war on terrorism has nothing to do with Islam as a religion.
Besides, the incumbent President has reiterated the need for U.S to watch iver the development of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs. There are myriad foreign policies touching on security as stipulated in the current administrative structure.
Notwithstanding this noble security plan by Obama administration, there is still some relentless pursuit by the very government to disarm its eastern foes. The rationale is unclear but there are doubts about Obama administration having followed in the footsteps of its predecessor.
The U.S government and its citizenry strictly uphold to the principles 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 are appointed 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.
Such a leadership arrangement is well understood by everybody and contravening the law can be challenged through the judicial system. This appears to be 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? 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 (Mandelbaum, 2000).
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 which is believed to contribute significantly to global warming, countries of the world convened in Japan and unanimously agreed to stick to Kyoto protocol. 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 a matter of national security if intently investigated.
There is the belief that George W. Bush had become neoconservative by the threshold of his second term. Bush was once quoted to have said that the U.S military is not meant to build the nation but rather to “fight and win war” (Fukuyama 165). Moreover, his foreign policy advisor Condoleezza Rice added her voice to this matter when she asserted that U.S troops had no duty escorting children to school.
These assertions were coherent enough to brand U.S as non-committed to the path of democracy when securing its borders. In fact, George W. Bush was more than ready to extend his “war and win” agenda to Iraq. As Fukuyama observes, Bush attempted to ideologically justify a war that would have been prevented. This, according to many of his critics, soiled the political governance of his second term (Garrett 173).
The intrigues of U.S foreign policy remain to be debatable as well as eliciting mixed reactions to the world at large. It must indeed be something else. Since Obama took over the oath of a presidential office, he has relentlessly pursued the restoration of U.S authority in Latin America (Viotti 76).
However, critics have a stand that this partnership may not be of central importance to U.S; there is more than meets the eye. If this position is anything to go by, then Quincy’s statement leaves a sour taste in the mouth of political analysts and the general public since it lacks credibility at some point.
Works Cited Fukuyama, Francis. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
Garrett, A. Stephen. Doing good and doing well: an examination of humanitarian intervention, Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999.
Federalism Evolving Essay
Nursing Assignment Help The American constitution does not capture the term federalism despite the fact that governance method has been in existence for many years. George Washington was not of the view that federalism would totally take a place in America.
It did not occur to him that national governance would prove difficult at some point in time. The characteristic wide geographical area, expanded infrastructural network and social amenities were some of the factors that steered America towards federalism (Smith 2).
It was difficult to offer comprehensive and balanced national governance to all regions within America especially in the 18th century. The federalism was thereafter born and it enjoys its existence until today. Several interventions have seen America move towards complete federalism (Helfman 108). Close ties among state governments have been instrumental in the working together of state governments. Cooperative federalism is now in place.
It emphasizes on shared policy formulation between the respective governments. The essay discusses how federalism has evolved since James Madison wrote The Federalist, 51 and the effects of Federalism on American politics. It also explains my opinion on whether I would construct a federalist or unified system if I were to design a constitution for a foreign government.
Articles of Confederation in 1770 may be regarded as the genesis of federalism. They laid down policies on the operation of federal government. However, the work of James Madison and others in the Federalist Papers contributed significantly to the genesis of federalism in the US.
Madison alone wrote over 20 articles on the subject and helped in the development and ratification of the US constitution and the 39th article as well as Federalist 51 is regarded as the most indicative of the concept of Federalism and the reasons for the need to have checks and balances of any government respectively. In the Federalist 51, Madison suggests that there is no greater reflection on human nature than that of having a government.
The long journey towards federalism is still transforming itself to accommodate various needs (Hamilton, Madison and Jay 45). Political power sharing and power of governance are the centers of interest within this form of government. The concept of federalism has been changing over the years. The various evolution changes are discussed next.
Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More The Articles of Confederation did not receive total support from the citizens. It was viewed as a tool for limiting the strengths of the federal government (Bailyn 13). Some citizens supported the recommendations of introducing federalism. It was the government’s failure to control the economy that sparked a rebellion from citizens in Massachusetts. The federal government could not handle the protests.
The bicameral legislature was adopted and enforced in 1887 and the formation of the US constitution given a thought in Philadelphia. Those opposed to the new constitution represented those who were also opposed to federalism. 1791 saw the passing of 10 articles drafted by Madison. The Bill of Rights was the product of these articles. The tenth Amendment held answers to the element of federalism. The conflicts that existed between proponents and opposes of federalism began to subdue with time (Martinez and Richardson 314).
The powers of the Federal government were increased once the sixteenth and seventeenth schedules were adopted. Dual Federalism lasted for a century. The demarcation of power was later characterized by the introduction of the local governments that functioned on different grounds from the state governments (Martinez and Richardson 325). The local governments were assigned duties that improved the quality of life.
Social amenities provision was left to the local governments. The federal government was assigned roles that included National Defense, Foreign policy and Currency Patents (Smith 13). It was upon the state government to ensure that Civil Service laws, family law, labor law and property law were enforced. Cases that were within each docket were handled by the respective governments.
The Great Depression experienced in US made things change in favor of the federal government. The federal government once again enjoyed a skewed amount of power.
The deterioration of the economy saw the federal government cooperate with the state governments to counter the recession. The introduction of the New Deal policies by Franklin Roosevelt gave the federal government more power to manage the financial aid (Martinez and Richardson 319).
The federal government received the aid and distributed it to the state governments. The creation of the cooperative Federalism was initiated. The absolute power to manage these grants did not ensure equitable economic development in the various states. The early 20th and 21st centuries witnessed the evolution of Cooperative Federalism to New Federalism (Martinez and Richardson 322).
We will write a custom Essay on Federalism Evolving specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More President Ronald Reagan championed the shift of power from the central government to the state governments. This shift was witnessed between 1981 and 1989 and was referred to as the devolution evolution. This recent evolution has enjoyed the test of time and is still in practice today.
What was achieved in this evolution was the restoration of lost autonomy and creation of political balance between the governments (Helfman 116). Presidents that succeeded Reagan have handled this with utmost care to ensure that US remains united in all its economic, social and political goals.
The national government is superior in the sense that it ensures matters of national interest remain intact and orderly (Bailyn 16). It is upon it to ensure that states function as required by the law. The national government would thus intervene and avert cases where a state rises against the other (Martinez and Richardson 331).
It ensures that all the citizens within states adhere to both laws. A practical example involved the contested 2000 Presidential election. The disputed votes in Florida exposed America to one of the biggest legal tussles due to issues of jurisdiction (Martinez and Richardson 333).
It was a big test for both governments, at a time when the world was awaiting to witness the election of the 43rd president of USA. The US Supreme Court was the final player in this matter and ensured that the contestation was over (Bailyn 18).
This clearly attests to the fact that the national government may be forced to intervene once a matter within a state is of national interest. The local government plays a crucial role in the expansion of education, health and sanitation facilities. It is however important to establish whether a facility is of state or national interest.
The federal government is keen on highway, airport and sewage plants projects that benefit people from various states. It is therefore common to have federal funding for such projects. The federal government stipulates policies that govern the allocation of such funds.
If I were to design a constitution for a foreign government, I would construct a federalist system of government. In my view, Federalism is superior to a unified system.
Not sure if you can write a paper on Federalism Evolving by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More A number of reasons can be cited to sufficiently support this claim. Federalism has proved to be the most effective way of power sharing without bringing a picture of political division. A concentrated power experienced in unified systems has been a source of limited democracy (Smith 28). The emergence and growth of monarchial empires have been a fruit of unified system.
Federalism ensures that policies and politics are decentralized for the good of all. It’s upon the states to decide what policies to adopt and which persons to spearhead their implementation. The adoption of policies in consideration of cultural and social norms is made possible through federalism. The state governments have been associated with remarkable innovation and democracy.
Moreover, the abolishment of slave trade in some states and the realization of affirmative action for women were witnessed in some states. Increased public participation through voting has sensitized people towards the awareness of their political rights.
Federalism, therefore, ensures that the public interests are accommodated at one level or the other. Policies that are rejected by a state may be acceptable to the national government. A practical example is the racial integration that was criticized and opposed by the southern states in 1960 (Bailyn 23).
The national government viewed the integration as a step towards attaining racial equality. Federalism is important in ensuring that decision making accommodates the needs of the citizens within a given state. A fair democratic system is that which offers a platform for positive criticism.
Federalism has proved crucial in the positive challenge of policies that may seem inappropriate at a given time. It is for this reason that a person may become a successful governor in a given state but fail to be elected at the national level. Federalism is therefore preferable to the unified system of government.
The essay has discussed how federalism has evolved since James Madison wrote The Federalist No. 51 and the effects of Federalism on American politics. It has also explained my opinion on why I would construct a federalist government instead of a unified system if I were to design a constitution for a foreign government.
Works Cited Bailyn, Bernard. The Federalist Papers. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2007: Pp. 13-24
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James and Jay, John. The Federalist Papers: 1787–88.
Reprint, New York: New American Library of World Literature, 2001: Pp. 43-76
Helfman, Tara. “The Law of Nations: The Federalist Papers’.” Journal of Legal History, 23 (August): 2000, Pp.107–128.
Martinez, J. Michael, and Richardson, D. William.”The Federalist Papers and Legal Interpretation.” South Dakota Law Review, 45, 2000: Pp. 307–333.
Smith, Jennifer. Understanding Federalism. UBC Press, 2005: Pp. 1-37