-
Anonim
1. What was the Monroe Doctrine? Why did it come into being and why did it work? Discuss its evolution over time (i.e.: some of the various corollaries to it).
What was the Monroe Doctrine:
The Monroe Doctrine (the brain child of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams) was a new American foreign policy announced by President James Monroe in 1823, which stated that efforts by European countries to colonize land or engage with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States as acts of aggression requiring US intervention. The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Western Hemisphere was not to be further colonized by European countries and that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when many Latin American countries were on the verge of becoming independent from the Spanish Empire and the United States thus hoped to avoid having any European power take Spain's colonies. (the United States wanted to ensure its dominance in the region).
Why did the Monroe Doctrine come into being:
Spain, France, and Russia did not want to give up their trade or market outlet and source for raw materials in the new world. In those days, world status was defined by the size of possessed army, and it took a great deal of wealth to support such an army. Consequently, this was the reason why so many European countries sought the wealth that colonies could supply. There was talk of Spain joining up with France in order to reclaim their rebellious colonies in the new world. Also at that time Russia had formed the Holy Alliance with Prussia and Austria in order to maintain world domination. The United States wanted to remain the strongest power in the Western Hemisphere.
Why did the Monroe Doctrine work:
Principally because of the strength of the British Navy. Trade with the Spanish-American nations was a key factor in Britain's policy. If they became colonies again, whether of Spain or of France, their trade with the United Kingdom would certainly be cut down (both Spain and France practiced mercantilism policy against the British policy of laissez-faire free trade). So Britain's position really was based on rivalry and protection of its own interests. In any case, Britain supported Monroe's position which may be one of the only reasons it survived since. It met British interests as well as those of the United States and, for the next 100 years, it was secured by the backing of the Royal Navy. (Britain was even willing to make a few sacrifices as long as it meant the doctrine would remain intact and keep other countries out. For example, in 1836, Americans objected to Britain's alliance with Texas on the principle of the Monroe Doctrine; Britain also respected the doctrine during James K. Polk's term of office when it was asked to keep its influence out of Oregon).
-
Anonim
Evolution of the Monroe Doctrine:
Over time various presidents altered this original phrasing:
● Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine from 1905 turned the meaning of the doctrine and went from noninterference to active responsibility by the United States to intervene anywhere in the Western Hemisphere where aggression ruled.
● The United States would enter two World Wars on the basic justification that they were restoring order and were only acting out of self-defense reasons.
● After World War Two the Monroe Doctrine had been shattered to pieces. The Cold War forced the United States to become even more dedicated to European matters and even after the Cold War the U.S. or a multilateral coalition under U.S. leadership now dealt with new threats to European peace (e.g.: the United States became a member of the United Nations and NATO committing to cooperate with Europe in maintaining world’s peace, designed the Marshall Plan to help European countries recover from post-war economic depression, and supported European countries against Communism like in Greece or Turkey)
● With the post 9/11 era all dreams about isolation from Europe were forever destroyed. The War on Terrorism is the latest effort of the United States to change the conditions of countries all around the world. -
Anonim
2. What has been the trend in America’s relationship with Europe over the past 100 years? Do you think that trend will continue or alter, and why?
The spread of U.S. economic, strategic and political influences over Europe after World War Two
The United States emerged as a great power at the end of the 19th century. Americans fought two big wars in Europe out of fear that if a single power (in those cases, Germany) attained hegemony in Europe, it would be able to mobilize the continent's resources and threaten the nation in the Western Hemisphere. Following World War Two, it was the United States that became the hegemonic power in Europe. Their economic capability could undersell anyone in their own home markets and their military strength was unparalleled worldwide. America’s Marshall Plan and North Atlantic Treaty were initiatives which sought to maintain its strong position in Europe and to prevent far Left parties (especially the communists) from coming to power on the Continent's western half after World War Two.
America's postwar European grand strategy reflected a complex set of interlocking economic, strategic and broadly political interests. To ensure peaceful and stable Europe after the war, the United States attempted to create an economically integrated and militarily de-nationalized Europe within the structure of an American-dominated Atlantic Community. Since the 1940s, United States encouraged Western Europe's integration into a single common market, but at the same time sought to prevent that from leading to its political unification that could challenge America’s geopolitical pre-eminence. To do that, successive U.S. administrations sought to denationalize the region by establishing a military protectorate that integrated Western Europe's military forces under, and subordinated them to, American command. Institutions such as NATO, the aborted European Defense Community, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the Common Market were the instruments the United States employed to contain the West Europeans.
-
Anonim
U.S. hegemony over Europe (and the world) will decline
The United States today has overwhelming hard power, especially military power, and indeed there is no state or coalition capable of restraining the United States from exercising that power. While France and Germany seek to create a European counterweight to the United States, Washington employs a number of strategies to keep European states apart (e.g. by discouraging Europe from collective efforts to acquire military capabilities and build own EU army, or pushing hard for the enlargement of the European Union, especially the admission of Turkey, in the expectation that a bigger union will prove unmanageable and hence unable to emerge as a politically unified actor in international politics.
But over time, the collective effects of expansion for America, particularly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as possible future wars against North Korea, Iran, Syria, or China over Taiwan, will have an enervating impact on U.S. power both in Europe and in the world. Over time, the costs of America's hegemonic trend will interact with its economic vulnerabilities, including endless budget deficits fueled in part by burgeoning military spending and the persistent balance of payments deficit, to erode America's relative power advantage over Europe. As the relative power gap between the United States and European Union begins to shrink, the costs and risks of challenging the United States will decrease, and the pay-off for doing so will increase.
-
-
Anonim
3. Describe how the outcome of the Vietnam War effected the way U.S. foreign policy was conducted (especially in the 1980s and 1990s)?
Lessons of Vietnam undoubtedly showed that the United States was not invincible anymore and the majority of Americans neither wanted to talk or think about their nation's longest and most debilitating war, the only war the United States ever lost. They were now unwilling to intervene abroad in the cause of democracy and freedom, and the bipartisan consensus that had supported American foreign policy since the 1940s dissolved. Democrats, in particular, questioned the need to contain communism everywhere around the globe and to play the role of the world’s policeman. The Democratic majority in Congress would enact the 1973 War Powers Resolution, ostensibly forbidding the president from sending U.S. troops into combat for more than ninety days without congressional consent. Exercising a greater assertiveness in matters of foreign policy, Congress increasingly emphasized the limits of American power as well as the cost Americans would pay in pursuit of specific foreign policy objectives. A new foreign policy that shaped was described in the military doctrine announced by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in 1984: the United States should use military force only as a last resort; only where the national interest is clearly involved; only when there is strong public support; and only in the likelihood of a relatively quick, inexpensive victory. The United States indeed intervened in Grenada (the cooperation of the island with communist Cuba posed a threat to the United States) and Nicaragua (human rights abuses and repressions of the civilians by the Soviet backed government) during the Reagan administration and in Kuwait (to help the ally in the Gulf) under the first Bush administration, but these actions suited the criteria regarding foreign interventions specified in the Weinberger doctrine. However, during the Clinton administration, Americans were reluctant to commit troops in Bosnia or Rwanda in 1992 and withdrew troops from Somalia in 1994. This proved that the logic behind the principles of the Weinberger doctrine were in place in the 1990s.
-
Anonim
4. What is Isolationism? Interventionism? Unilateralism? Multilateralism? American Exceptionalism? How and why did these policies/concepts shape the nature of American foreign policy in various period of time?
Isolationism – was a policy of the United States from the 18th through half of the 20th century. As advised by Washington in his Farewell Address, young and still weak country politically isolated itself from the world to protect its newly achieved independence and refused to interfere with the affairs of foreign countries; it also avoided alliances with those countries. This policy gave Americans freedom in choices of when, where, and how to intervene abroad, enabling their country to become a great power by the end of the 19th century.
Interventionism – means that a state gets involved in the affairs of other states and interacts with them. Since the World War Two, the United States has been deeply bind with the rest of the world through international agreements which not only enable the nation to play an important role in the world scene but also safeguard American interests abroad.
Unilateralism – is a tendency to conduct foreign affairs alone without the advice or involvement of other nations. The end of the Cold War and the bipolar created conditions in which the United States became less dependent on multilateral institutions than it had once been and its unchallengeable military might make Americans even more reluctant to share that power. The nation is inclined to act unilaterally in situations with international implications; they avoid international commitments that might constrain America’s freedom of action, for example, under Clinton and Bush, America rejected the Kyoto, land mine, the International Criminal Court, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaties. Moreover, unilateralist elements were noted in the Bush doctrine of preemptive action. The United States refusal to cooperate provokes other countries to refuse their cooperation in dealing with problems that affect Americans themselves.
Multilateralism – describes a state’s quest to assert its interests and goals through cooperation and coalitions with other states. Multilateralism became a key instrument in the U.S. efforts to rebuild international order and conduct the Cold War. Americans made a number of multilateral commitments with other states in Europe and Asia (e.g. the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). However, for the United States took a pragmatic approach to multilateralism; they preferred it as long as it served American interests, but were willing to dispense it when it did not. All in all, U.S. multilateral cooperation enhanced American economic and military power in the post-World War Two era.
American Exceptionalism – is the worldview that the United States has a unique role in the world because it’s freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and dynamic than any other nation. America’s exceptional status was both compatible with the view of the United States as the shining example of society constituted in liberty well as the view of the United States as the striving reformer of world politics. American exceptionalism has been used to justify a number of international conflicts in which the United States intervened after World War Two, seeking to spread and promote democracy and freedom in the countries involved.
-
Anonim
5. What does the U.S. Constitution say about foreign policy? Which constitutional actors in the making of foreign policy?
There is not much said about foreign affairs in the United States Constitution. The Framers said a good deal about only one aspect of foreign policy – war powers – which they spelled out in some detail, allocating them between the President and Congress. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy.
Current events in foreign countries or a sudden action by a foreign government which challenge U.S. interests make the president respond to such events and thus initiates U.S. policy. In accordance with the constitution, Congress may support the policy enunciated by the President, attempt to change it, or find a way to participate in the further development of the policy.
Article II of the Constitution says that the president has the power to: make treaties with other countries (to which the Senate is given the authority to advise and consent), appoint ambassadors to other countries (with the advise and consent of the Senate), and receive ambassadors from other countries. Article II also establishes the president as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy. But while the President can order the United States military into action, only the Congress has the authority to officially declare war. And even if a president was successful in getting a war started, Congress has the power to stop it by cutting off the money that funds it. The Constitution mandates that if Congress raises an army, it can’t fund it for longer than a two-year period.
Nevertheless, presidential use of the power to order U.S. forces into combat without a congressional declaration of war increased greatly during the twentieth century. Particularly during the half-century of cold war conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, presidents claimed the right to deploy military forces on their own initiative (the Korean and Vietnam wars). Accordingly, the 1973 War Powers Resolution was enacted by Congress, requiring that a president terminate combat in a foreign territory within sixty to ninety days unless there was congressional authorization to continue.
According to Article I, Congress also possesses authority to regulate commerce with other nations, make rules governing immigration and naturalization, ensure that the nation is protected from threats both inside and outside the country (provide for common defense), and to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, among other things.
( Article III gives the Supreme Court original rule over all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, while it generally lodges in the federal courts jurisdiction in controversies between a state, or its citizens, and foreign states, or their citizens.)
-
Anonim
-
Anonim
A czy można korzystać ze swoich notatek podczas odpowiedzi na te pytania czy trzeba mówić wszystko z głowy? Dziękuję z góry za info! -
Anonim
Dają ci kartkę papieru, długopis i kilka minut. Możesz sobie przez ten czas zrobić jakieś notatki, żeby ci bylo latwiej odpowiadac. Nie mozna miec swoich notatek przyniesionych z zewnątrz, przeciez to egzamin...; -) Generalnie luz blues i orzeszki. Nie ma co się stresować. Pomagają i nie udupiają raczej. :-) -
Anonim
Podobne Tematy
|
|
America! America! God shed His grace on thee:)) Dla wszystkich zainteresowanych...moze uda nam sie...
Fotki
Miejsca grona (2)
-
OSA UW , Wierzbno
-
Uniwersytet Warszawski Krakowskie Przedmieście, Warsaw
- Dodaj miejsce