Foreign relations of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

For a history, see Timeline of United States diplomatic history

For the published diplomatic papers, see The Foreign Relations of the United States

United States of America
This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the United States
Federal government
Constitution
President Vice President Cabinet
Congress Senate President pro tem Party Leaders House Speaker Party Leaders Congressional districts
Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices
Elections
Presidential elections Midterm elections
Political Parties
Democratic Republican Third parties
State & Local government
Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns
Other countries · Politics Portal view • talk • edit

The foreign relations of the United States are marked and shaped by the world's largest economy, the world's largest funded military, and a large amount of global political influence.^[1]

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." ^[2] In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation."^[3].

These stated policy goals have come under criticism from various sources, some of which are listed below.

Contents 1 Decision-making 2 Brief history 3 Diplomatic relations 4 Allies 5 Relations with Latin America 6 Criticism and responses 7 Territorial disputes 8 Illicit drugs 9 Military aid 10 History of exporting democracy 10.1 U.S. intervention does not export democracy 10.2 U.S. intervention has mixed results 10.3 U.S. intervention has exported democracy 10.4 Quotes 11 See also 12 References 13 External links 14 Further reading 14.1 History of exporting democracy 14.2 Warnings

[edit] Decision-making

The President negotiates treaties with foreign nations. The President is also Commander in Chief of the military, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces once they are deployed. The Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

The Congress has the power to declare war, but the President has the ability to commit military troops to an area for 60 days without Congressional approval, though in all cases it has been granted afterwards. The Senate (one of the two houses of Congress) also holds the exclusive right to approve treaties made by the President. Congress is likewise responsible for passing bills that determine the general character and policies of United States foreign policy.

The third arm of government is the Supreme Court which has traditionally played a minimal role in foreign policy.

[edit] Brief history

American foreign policy can be considered to have first emerged with the initiation of the "Olive Branch Policy", an attempt on the part of the new state of America to reconcile with Great Britain. During the American Revolution, the United States established relations with several European powers, convincing France, Spain, and the Netherlands to intervene in the war against Britain, a mutual enemy. In the period following, the U.S. oscillated between pro-French and pro-British policies. In general, the U.S. remained aloof from European disputes, focusing on territorial expansion in North America.

After the Spanish colonies in Latin America declared independence, the U.S. established the Monroe Doctrine, a policy of keeping European powers out of the Americas. U.S. expansionism led to war with Mexico and to diplomatic conflict with Britain over the Oregon Territory and with Spain over Florida and later Cuba. During the American Civil War, the U.S. accused Britain and France of supporting the Confederate States and accused France of trying to control Mexico. After the Civil War Anglo-American relations improved as the wartime cooperation continued. The most comprehensive treaty of the century was concluded at Washington on May 8th 1871 that resolved antebellum and wartime disputes. Meanwhile, American patience about the French military occupation of Mexico City to protect the puppet ruler Napoleon III had sent, Maximilian, succeeded. The French government became increasingly bankrupted by the Mexican initiative, said to be part of Napoleon III's "grand design" to modernize backward nations. His design was more fraudulent to spread his imperial power, which he was then unable to do in Europe or elsewhere such as in the Middle East. In 1866 and 1867 over 40,000 French troops were withdrawn from Mexico and, despite American Secretary of State William Henry Seward's entreaties on his behalf, Maximilian was executed. Actually with the end of British military persuasion after 1815, the U.S. was unchallenged in its home territory, except by Native Americans. Through the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, it strove to be the dominant influence in the Americas, trying to weaken European influence in Latin America and occasionally intervening to establish puppet governments in weak states.

As U.S. power grew, it began to look at interests farther abroad, particularly in the pursuit of trade. It occupied territories in the Pacific, such as Hawaii and the Philippines, demanded the opening of Japan to trade, and competed with other powers for influence in China. During World War I, the United States was among the victorious Allies, after which it returned to more isolationist policies.

The United States entered World War II in 1941, again on the Allied side, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war against the U.S. by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After the war, it was a major player in the establishment of the United Nations and became one of five permanent members of the Security Council.

During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy sought to limit the influence of the Soviet Union around the world (called "containment"), leading to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the overthrow of at least one democratic government, and diplomatic actions like the opening of China and establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It also sought to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Britain as a global power, leading international economic organizations such as the WTO and GATT. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. had military and economic interests in every region of the globe. In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States invaded Panama, officially because Noriega (the then dictator) was involved in drug trafficking; in reality because the US didn't want to relinquish the Panama canal on Panama's terms. In the 1980s the U.S. operated campaigns in Central America, supporting the organisation "Contras" in Nicaragua and the dictatorial governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador. In 1986 the US was convicted of multiple violations of international law and breaches of treaties against Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Further information: Nicaragua v. United States‎

In 1991, the U.S. organized and led the Gulf War against Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait. After the September 11, 2001 attack, the country declared a "War on Terror," under which it has led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (Second Gulf War).

As of 2006, the U.S. is one of only two countries in the English-speaking world not to be a member of the Commonwealth (the other being the Republic of Ireland).

[edit] Diplomatic relations

The United States has one of the largest diplomatic presences of any nation. Almost every country in the world has both a U.S. embassy and an embassy of its own in Washington, D.C. Only a few nations do not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States. They are:

• Bhutan (The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India has consular responsibilities for Bhutan)^[4]
• Cuba
• Iran (the ambassador of Switzerland acts as intermediary between Tehran and Washington DC)
• North Korea
• Somalia (no widely recognized government)
• Sudan
• Republic of China (Taiwan) (recognized by fewer than 30 countries)
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) (not recognized)

In practical terms however, this lack of formal relations do not impede the U.S.'s communication with these nations. In the cases where no U.S. diplomatic post exists, American relations are usually conducted via the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, or another friendly third-party. In the case of the Republic of China, de facto relations are conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan. The U.S. also operates an "Interests Section in Havana". While this does not create a formal diplomatic relationship, it fulfils most other typical embassy functions.

The U.S. maintains a Normal Trade Relations list and several countries are excluded from it, which means that their exports to the United States are subject to significantly higher tariffs.

[edit] Allies

The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 26 nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. This is restricted to within the North American and European areas, and for this reason the U.S. was not compelled to participate in the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

The United States has also given major non-NATO ally-status to fourteen nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

The country's closest ally is arguably the United Kingdom, itself a major military and economic power, although Australia and Canada have also proved to be extremely resilient allies.

Further information: special relationship

Other allies include South Korea, Israel, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, and Japan. The government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), does not have official diplomatic relations recognized and is no longer officially recognized by the State Department of the United States, but it is considered by some an ally of the United States.

In 2005, U.S. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a landmark agreement between the two countries on civilian nuclear energy cooperation. The deal is significant because India is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and detonated a nuclear device in 1974. The deal will greatly increase strategic and economic cooperation between the world's two largest democracies^[5].

US State secretary Condoleezza Rice has signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement with Bulgaria, a new NATO member, in 2006. The treaty allows the US (not NATO) to develop as joint US-Bulgarian facilities the Bulgarian air bases at Bezmer (near Yambol) and Graf Ignatievo (near Plovdiv), the Novo Selo training range (near Sliven), and a logistics centre in Aytos, as well as to use the commercial port of Burgas. At least 2,500 US personnel will be located there. The treaty also allows the US to use the bases "for missions in tiers country without a specific authorization from Bulgarian authorities," and grants US militaries immunity from prosecution in this country ^[6]. Another agreement with Romania permits the US to use the Mihail Kogălniceanu base and another one nearby ^[6].

[edit] Relations with Latin America

Main article: United States and South and Central America

The Argentine film called Sed, Invasión Gota a Gota ("Thirst, Invasion Drop by Drop"), directed by Mausi Martínez, portrays the military of the United States as slowly but steadily increasing its presence in the Triple Frontera (Triple Frontier, the area around the common borders of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil). The overt reason for the increasing presence of U.S. troops and joint exercises, mainly with Paraguay, is to monitor the large Arab population which resides in the area. However, Martínez alleges that it is the water of the Guarani Aquifer which brings the Americans to the area, and she fears a subtle takeover before the local governments even realize what is going on.

Similar concerns were lifted following both the signature of a military training agreement with Paraguay, which accorded immunity to U.S. soldiers from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and was indefinitely renewable (something which had never been done before, while Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Paraguay and, for the first time ever, Paraguayan president Nicanor Duarte Frutos went to the White House), and the construction of a U.S. military base near the airport of Mariscal Estigarribia, within 200 km of Argentina and Bolivia and 300 km of Brazil. The airport can receive large planes (B-52, C-130 Hercules, etc.) which the Paraguayan Air Force does not possess. ^{[7] [8]}. The governments of Paraguay and the United States subsequently ostensibly declared that the use of an airport (Dr Luís María Argaña International)[1] was one point of transfer for few soldiers in Paraguay at the same time. According to the Argentine newspaper Clarín, the U.S. military base is strategic because of its location near the Triple Frontier, its proximity to the Guaraní Aquifer, and its closeness to Bolivia (less than 200 km) at the same "moment that Washington's magnifying glass goes on the Altiplano [Bolivia] and points toward Venezuelan [president] Hugo Chávez — the regional devil according to the Bush administration — as the instigator of the instability in the region" (El Clarín ^[8]). In October 2006, US President George W. Bush was reported to be negotiating for purchase of a 400 km² ranch near Marriscal Estigarribia ^[9][10].

But Paraguay decided in October 2006 not to renew the immunity granted to US soldiers. The other members of the Mercosur trade bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela) have so far refused to grant immunity to U.S. troops. All four nations have in recent years elected leftist governments critical of U.S. policy (Lula in Brazil, Nestor Kirschner in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela) ^[11]

[edit] Criticism and responses

US foreign policy has been heavily criticized by foreign media and spokespersons, including some of the media in allied countries such as the United Kingdom. Critics of U.S. foreign policy tend to state that the goals commonly regarded as noble were often overstated and point out what they see as contradictions between foreign policy rhetoric and actions:

• The mention of peace as opposed to the long list of U.S. military involvements
• The mention of freedom and democracy as opposed to the many former and current dictatorships that receive or received U.S. financial or military support, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
• The mention of free trade as opposed to U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood, steel and agricultural products.
• The mention of U.S. generosity as opposed to the low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries.
• The mention of environment safety as opposed to the lack of support for environmental treaties (for instance the Kyoto Protocol)
• The defense of human rights as opposed to the lack of ratification of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, widespread support of dictatorial governments whose military the US trains on methods of torture (notably in the infamous School of the Americas), support for terrorism, for example the Contras in Nicaragua.

There are a variety of responses to these criticisms. For instance, some argue that the increased American military involvement around the world is an outgrowth of the inherent instability of the world state system as it existed in the late 19th Century. The inherent failings of this system led to the outbreak of World War I and World War II. The United States has assumed a prominent peacekeeping role, on its own terms, due to the easily demonstrable inter-state insecurity that existed before 1945.

Further, some experts have stated that since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a war to defend against an imminent threat, it was a war of aggression, and therefore under the Nuremberg Principles it constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow. For example, Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[12] Similarly, under the U.N. Charter, ratified by the U.S. and therefore binding on it, all U.N. member states including the U.S. are prohibited from using force against fellow member states (Iraq is a member of the U.N.) except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit U.N. Security Council authorization (UN Charter; international law). "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war^[13]. A frequent rebuttal to this criticism is the assertion that the United Nations gave the United States and its coalition partners the legal authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, providing that Iraq would "face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Other realist critics, such as George F. Kennan, have noted that the responsibility of the United States is only to protect the rights of its own citizens, and that therefore Washington should deal with other governments on that basis alone. Realists charge that heavy emphasis on democratization or nation-building abroad was one of the major tenets of President Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic philosophy, and the failure of the League of Nations to enforce the will of the international community in the cases of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in the 1930s, as well as the inherent weakness of the new states created at the Paris Peace Conference, demonstrated the folly of Wilson's idealism.

There is also criticism of alleged human rights abuse, the most important recent examples of which are the multiple reports of alleged prisoner abuse and torture at U.S.-run detention camps in Guantánamo Bay (at "Camp X-ray") (in Cuba), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), secret CIA prisons (eastern Europe), and other places voiced by, e.g. the Council of Europe and Amnesty International. Amnesty International in its Amnesty International Report 2005 [2] says that: "the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times" [3]. This Amnesty report also claimed that there was a use of double standards in the U.S. government: the U.S. president "has repeatedly asserted that the United States was founded upon and is dedicated to the cause of human dignity". (Theme of his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2004 Sep 2004). But some memorandums emerged after the Abu Ghraib scandal "suggested that the administration was discussing ways in which its agents could avoid the international ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" [4]. Government responses to these criticisms include that Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and the network of secret CIA jails in Eastern Europe and the Middle East were largely isolated incidents and not reflective of general U.S. conduct, and at the same time maintain that coerced interrogation in Guantánamo and Europe is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.

U.S. generosity is not demonstrated in the relatively low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries. However as far as measured by goods and monetary amounts the U.S is the most generous. Religious tithes, emergency donations to relief organizations, and donations to medical research, for example, are common and frequent. The United States tax code structure is designed to further this type of charitable donation by private individuals and corporations.

[edit] Territorial disputes

The United States is involved with several territorial disputes, including maritime disputes over the Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Northwest Passage, and areas around Machias Seal Island and North Rock with Canada. ^[14] These disputes have become dormant recently, and are largely considered not to affect the strong relations between the two nations.

Other disputes include:

• U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay is leased from Cuba and only mutual agreement or U.S. abandonment of the area can terminate the lease. Cuba contends that the lease is invalid as the Platt Amendment creating the lease was included in the Cuban Constitution under threat of force and thus is voided by article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
• Haiti claims Navassa Island.
• U.S. has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other nation.
• Marshall Islands claims Wake Island.

[edit] Illicit drugs

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to halt imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts date back to at least 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement which prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries.

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005 [5], the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous twelve months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown marijuana continues. The U.S. believes that The Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

[edit] Military aid

The U.S. provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia.

[edit] History of exporting democracy

Further information: Iran Freedom and Support Act

In the history of the United States, presidents have often used democracy as a justification for military intervention abroad.^[15][16], although on a number of other occasions democratically elected governments were overthrown (See Operation Ajax, Operation PBSUCCESS). A number of studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Most studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the history of the United States exporting democracy.^[17] Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."^[18][19]

But some studies, such as a study by Tures find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,^[17] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.^[20]

[edit] U.S. intervention does not export democracy

Professor Paul W. Drake explains that the United States first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argues that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." Democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and American leaders usually defined democracy as elections only. Further the United States Department of State disapproved of any rebellion of any kind, which were often incorrectly labeled "revolutions", even against dictatorships.^[21] As historian Walter LaFeber states, "The world's leading revolutionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century."^[22]

Mesquita and Downs evaluate the period between 1945 to 2004. They state that the U.S. has intervened in 35 countries, and only in one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within 10 years.^[23] Samia Amin Pei argues that nation building in developed countries usually begins to unravel four to six years after American intervention ends. Pei, quoting Polity, (a database on democracy in the world), agrees with Mesquita and Downs that most countries where the U.S. intervenes never becomes a democracy or becomes more authoritarian after 10 years.^[24]

Professor Joshua Muravchik argues that U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after World War II, but America's failure to build democracy in the third world "prove...that U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."^[25][26] The success of democracy in former Axis countries maybe because of these countries per-capita income. Steven Krasner of the CDDRL states that a high per capita income may help build a democracy, because no democratic country with a per-capita income which is above $6,000 has ever become an autocracy.^[21]

[edit] U.S. intervention has mixed results

Tures examines 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. A plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy. In 69 instances the country became less democratic after the intervention. In the remaining 63 cases, a country became more democratic.^[17]

[edit] U.S. intervention has exported democracy

Hermann and Kegley find that American military interventions which are designed to protect or promote democracy increase freedom in those countries.^[20] Penceny argues that the democracies created after military intervetion is still closer to an autocracy than a democracy, quoting Przeworski "while some democracies are more democratic than others, unless offices are contested, no regime should be considered democratic."^[27] Therefore, Penceny concludes, it is difficult to know from the Hermann and Kegley study whether U.S. intervention has only produced less repressive autocratic governments or genuine democracies.^[28]

Penceny states that the United States has attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 twentieth-century military interventions.^[29] Penceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.^[30]

[edit] Quotes

“

No state has more consistently proclaimed its adherence to this liberal vision of the international system than the United States.[31]

”

“

Electorism is the faith (widely held by U.S. policymakers) that merely holding elections will channel political action into peaceful contests among elites and accord public legitimacy to the winners in there contests. Electorism requires that foreign or domestic elites do some political engineering to produce the most common surface manifestations of a democratic polity--parties, electoral laws, contested campaigns, and the like. Yet this sort of tinkering, however will-intended, cannot by itself produce the consensus...which must underlie any enduring democracy.[32]

”

Smedley Butler, who confessed to Congress in 1934 that he was involved in a failed military coup against the Roosevelt administration, was a popular lecturer on the left-wing circuit who claimed:

“

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.[33]

”

[edit] See also

History of U.S. expansion and influence

American Empire

Foreign relations

List of military actions

Non-interventionism

Opposition to expansion

Overseas expansion

Pax Americana

Territorial acquisitions

This box: view • talk • edit

• American empire
• American diplomatic missions
• Extraordinary rendition
• List of joint US-Bulgarian military bases
• List of United States military history events
• Special relationship
• Timeline of United States diplomatic history
• United States and the United Nations
• United States, Chanceries of Foreign Governments
• Unlawful combatant

Relations with specific foreign nations:

• Afghanistan: United States-Afghanistan relations
• Australia: United States-Australia relations
• Canada: Canada-United States relations
• China: Sino-American relations
• Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast): United States-Côte d'Ivoire relations
• Cuba Cuba-United States relations
• France: Franco-American relations
• Germany: German-American relations
• India: Indo-American relations
• Iran: U.S.-Iran relations
• Israel: Israel-United States relations
• North Korea: U.S.-North Korea relations
• Japan: Japan-American relations
• Pakistan: U.S.-Pakistan relations
• Russia: Russo-United States relations
• South Korea: South Korea-U.S. relations
• Turkey: Turkey-United States relations
• United Kingdom: Anglo-American relations
• Venezuela: United States-Venezuela relations
• United Nations: United States and the United Nations

[edit] References

1. ^ The estimated GDP of all countries recognized by formally recognized by the United States for which data is available is here; the military expenditures for said countries is available here; and the political details are available on the main United States page here here.
2. ^ US Dept of State - Foreign Policy Agenda
3. ^ Committe on Foreign Affairs: U.S. House of Representatives
4. ^ [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35839.htm Article on Bhutan
5. ^ LA Times article on Indo-US Deal
6. ^ ^{a b} OTAN - Le grand jeu des bases militaires en terre européenne, Manlio Dilucci, French translation published on May 9, 2006 in Le Grand Soir newspaper of an article originally published in Il Manifesto on April 30, 2006
7. ^ "U.S. Military Moves in Paraguay Rattle Regional Relations", International Relations Center, December 14, 2005. Retrieved on April 2006.
8. ^ ^{a b} US Marines put a foot in Paraguay, El Clarín, September 9, 2005 (Spanish)
9. ^ "Pres. Bush buys 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay", SF Bay Area Independent Media Center, October 19, 2006. Retrieved on October 2006.
10. ^ "Gobernador admite que hay versiones de que Bush compró tierras en el Chaco", Neike Periodismo Independiente, 11 October 2006. Retrieved on October 2006.
11. ^ Paraguay Hardens U.S. Military Stance, The Washington Post, October 3, 2006
12. ^ Glantz, Aaron (August 25 2006). "Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor". OneWorld.net. 
13. ^ Bernton, Hal (August 18 2006). "Iraq war bashed at hearing for soldier who wouldn't go". The Seattle Times. 
14. ^ "Transnational Issues". April 20, 2006. CIA World factbook. Accessed April 30, 2006.
15. ^ Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de; George W. Downs (Spring 2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest 2.  Also see this page.
16. ^ Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391–402.  p. 391
17. ^ ^{a b c} Tures, John A.. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations". Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations. PDF file.
18. ^ Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.  In Exporting Democracy, Themes and Issues, edited by Abraham Lowenthal p. 243-265.
19. ^ Penceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.  p. 183
20. ^ ^{a b} Hermann, Margaret G.; Charles W. Kegley, Jr.. "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions 24 (2): 91-114. 
21. ^ ^{a b} Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.  p. 1, 4, 5.
22. ^ Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9. 
23. ^ Factors included (1) limits on executive power, (2) clear rules for the transition of power, (3) universal adult suffrage, and (4) competitive elections.
24. ^ Pei, Samia Amin; Seth Garz (March 17 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune. 
25. ^ Penceny, p. 186.
26. ^ Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press. ISBN 0-8447-3734-8.  p. 91-118.
27. ^ Przeworski, Adam; Michael M. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub (1996). "What Makes Democracy Endure". Journal of Democracy 7 (1): 39–55. 
28. ^ Penceny, p. 193
29. ^ Penceny, p. 2
30. ^ Review: Shifter, Michael (Winter 2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society. 
31. ^ Penceny, p. 1.
32. ^ Loenthal, p. 6. Quoting Karl, Terry, "Imposing Consent? Electorism vs. Democratization in El Salvador," in Drake, Paul W.; Eduardo Silva (eds.) (1986). Elections and Democratization in Latin America, 1980-1985. La Jolla, California: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies. ISBN 9997023889.  p. 9-36
33. ^ General Smedley Darlington Butler, Common Sense, 1935

[edit] External links

• Getting beyond the Bush Doctrine, Edward A. Kolodziej, Center for Global Studies, December, 2006.
• A site explaining U.S. foreign policy during the last 60 years
• U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy, a Background Q&A by cfr.org, the website of the Council on Foreign Relations
• U.S. State Dept. Documentary: Foreign Relations of the United States
• Foreign Relations of the United States 1861-1960 (full text from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries)
• Timeline of U.S. diplomatic history
• Introduction to U.S. foreign aid
• Foreign aid by country
• India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States"
• An analysis of the strained love-hate relationship between U.S. and Pakistan by Prof. Adil Najam of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy published in The News International
• Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index Tracking survey of American public attitudes on foreign policy, conducted by Public Agenda with Foreign Affairs magazine.
• Speech by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on U.S. Policy in Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation on October 25, 2006
• An interactive map of some examples of a sampling of U.S. Foreign Policy

[edit] Further reading

[edit] History of exporting democracy

• Barro, Robert J. (Spring 2002). "Democracy in Afghanistan: Don't Hold Your Breath". Hoover Digest (2). *
• Carothers, Thomas (January/February 2003). "Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror". Foreign Affairs: 84. *
• Diamond, Larry (2004). "The Long Haul". Hoover Digest (2). *
• Forsythe, David P. (2000). "U.S. Foreign Policy and Enlarging the Democratic Community". Human Rights Quarterly 22 (4): 988-1010. *
• Gleditsch, Nils Petter; Lene Siljeholm, Havard Hegre (April 13-18 2004). "Democratic Jihad? Military Intervention and Democracy". Paper presented at the workshop on Resources, Governance Structure and Civil War, Uppsala, Sweden.  Finds that democratizatioin is unpredictable in the long-term.
• Hay, William Anthony (April 28 2006). "Can Democracy Be Imposed from the Outside?". Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI).  Alternative link. International history of exporting democracy. In the United States after idealism fails, the goal becomes a realist focus on stability and the protection of American interests.
• Hermann, Margaret G.; Charles W. Kegley, Jr.. "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions 24 (2): 91-114.  Uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.
• Krasner, Stephen D. (November 26 2003). "We Don't Know How To Build Democracy". Los Angeles Times. *
• Lawson, Chappell; Strom C. Tucker (2003). "Democracy? In Iraq?". Hoover Digest 3 (3).  This study points to 19 cases of U.S. intervention "in the last century," including Afghanistan, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Germany, Grenada, Haiti, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Somalia, South Korea, and South Vietnam. In half of these cases democratic institutions remained, in the other half they did not. To determine the success of Iraq becoming a democracy, this study uses data compiled by Freedom House measuring democracy in 186 countries, during four years, the years 1996 through 2000.
• Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1. 
• Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391-402. 
• Pei, Samia Amin; Seth Garz (March 17 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune.  The study finds that democracies built by the U.S. begin to unravel in the decade after U.S. forces depart, because political elites begin to change the law to fit their own interests. This study points to 14 cases of U.S. intervention in the twentieth century.
• Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.  This book finds that when the U.S. interventions later supported elections, the democracy was more likely to succeed. This study points to 25 cases of U.S. intervention between 1898 and 1992.
  • Review: Shifter, Michael (Winter 2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society. 
• Smith, Tony; Richard C. Leone (1995). America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04466-X. 
• Tures, John A.. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations". Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations. PDF file. This study points to 30 U.S. interventions between 1945 and 1991. Also uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.
• Tures, John A.. "To Protect Democracy (Not Practice It): Explanations of Dyadic Democratic Intervention (DDI) The Use of Liberal Ends to Justify Illiberal Means". OJPCR: The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution. 

[edit] Warnings

These studies warn that liberal states are likely to wield "illiberal methods" in promoting democracy in other countries.

• Doyle, Michael W. (December 1986). "Liberalism and World Politics". American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1151-1161. 
• Machiavelli, Niccolo; Max Lerner, ed. Luigi Ricci and Christian Detmold, trans. (1950). The Prince and the Discourses. New York: Modern Library. 
• Nils Petter Gleditsch, "Democracy and Peace," in Gomien, Donna (1995). Broadening the Frontiers of Human Rights. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press. ISBN 82-00-41097-8.  p. 287-306.

United States Foreign Policy

Doctrines: Presidential doctrines: Proclamation of Neutrality • Monroe Doctrine • Roosevelt Corollary • Truman Doctrine • Eisenhower Doctrine • Kennedy Doctrine • Johnson Doctrine • Nixon Doctrine • Carter Doctrine • Reagan Doctrine • Clinton Doctrine • Bush Doctrine Other doctrines: Lodge Corollary • Containment • Domino theory • Rollback • Stimson Doctrine • Kirkpatrick Doctrine • Weinberger Doctrine • Powell Doctrine • Rumsfeld Doctrine • Wolfowitz Doctrine Bilateral relations: Transatlantic relations: Anglo-American relations • Franco-American relations • German-American relations • Greek-American relations • Swedish-American relations • Turkey-United States relations Other relations: United States-Australia relations • Belarusian-American relations • Canada-United States relations • Indo-U.S. relations • Japanese-American relations • North Korean-American relations • Russo-United States relations • Sino-American relations U.S. military alliances: NATO • Anzus

holy moly you really can edit this!