UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY

President Giancarlo Sapelli

Secretary of State Lillian Padilla

Secretary of Defense Gypsy Brese

Political Advisor Adolfo Lara

Economic Advisor/Ambassador Nilpesh Amin

GOALS, INTEREST, AND OBJECTIVES

The United States of America is a very important actor in international politics. The United States is not only looked upon, as it’s own sovereign nation, but also looked at by many nations as the world leader and the one that needs to help other sovereign nations. That is why the foreign policy goals and objectives of the United States are very broad and not clear cut. American foreign policy has just gone through an extensive change. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the collapse of the communist scare, America entered a new era in the world of foreign policy. Everything the past foreign policy makers had discussed as problems and areas in need of addressing had been changed dramatically. Now seen as one of the main actors in global affairs, the United States needed to address a new set of goals and objectives. The United States needed to address a whole new theory of national security with the increasing technology of weapons of mass destruction. With global affairs, how would the United States now handle the world hunger issue and protection of basic human rights? Also new economic issues arose and questions how they would handle these new problems and views became important to foreign policy makers. In this section the, United States will address these questions and many more. Then finally the United States will provide a breakdown of the importance of these issues and how important each of these goals and objectives are. The importance of these roles are discussed in the sense of what are reaction and our stance, because each and every one of these goals and objectives are very important to the United States.

National Security:

One of the most important if not THE most important goals and objectives for the United States in foreign policy is that of national security. The goal of the United States is to promote the integrity of the United States territory and its people. The promotion of peace and safety within is vital for the United States to continue as a peaceful nation. Acts of violence, abuse or aggression against American people, possessions or land, whether it be foreign or domestic is inexcusable. The United States wants to secure the peace and deter aggression with the use of the least amount of armed force influence as necessary.

One of the most important stances, for the United States on national security is the stoppage of the proliferation of and the use of weapons of mass destruction. If national security is the most important goal or objective of foreign policy, then the stance on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and warfare is almost as important enough to stand alone as its own category. The United States, while being nuclear capable does not like the fact that weapons of mass destruction are currently being produced in other nations. These weapons range from nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. The United States believes very strongly about this, that it is willing to go to war to protect against the continuing stockpiling and use of these types of weapons. These types of weapons are now being created in such a fashion that with a push of a remote button can launch an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from Russia and land in the backyard of 1600 East Pennsylvania Avenue. This poses a very large threat to the national security of America. Not only does the United States want to halt the creation of these weapons; it also wants to deter the threat of these weapons being used against themselves or its allies. The United States believes that this is very important that there is some kind of regulation for these weapons. The United States views these weapons not only as a threat to domestic soil, but also as a threat globally. That is why the United States takes a very strong and firm stance against the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Not only is the security and safety of the United States and its people important, it is also important that protection of its allies is respected. The United States, while being a very powerful sovereign nation does not stand-alone and only care for itself. Acts of aggression against Asia, Europe, and the high seas is also not tolerated by the United States. The United States believes that it needs to protect its allies and promote peace worldwide. To commit a hostile act on an ally is to almost commit the same act on the United States. The United States will help defend and protect their allies, for it is in the better interest of national security.

Along with protecting Americans and the United States’ assets from violence the United States also provides safety for Americans from other global dangers. One of these protections is protection against infectious disease. Diseases and viruses can be as deadly if not deadlier than a loaded gun in the hands of a mad man. They can act as silent assassins that can strike quickly and can easily get extremely out of hand if not detected early enough. Protection of Americans against the infiltration of drugs into our society is also very important to the United States. The United States’ borders are the most porous borders in the entire world; therefore the attempted trafficking of drugs into our nation is another national security issue that must be dealt with. The United States needs to protect its youth, and its general population from the negative underlying affects of illegal substances.

Economic:

Another important goal for the United States is the preservation and continuing expansion of the American economic structure. Globally there are little bits and pieces that affect the United States economy in some way. Whether it is a direct or indirect market of the United States, international markets and economies almost always affect the United States. Throughout much of the early 1900’s much of the United States foreign policy was focused on the control of arms. This was due to the fear of the communist Russia. Now however, the focus has shifted to the expansion and the working prosperity of the United States economic structure and that of the global economic structure also. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher stated back in 1995, “I make no apologies for putting economics at the top of [the U.S.] foreign policy agenda”(American Foreign Policy, 15). The important goals and objectives of the United States is the opening of more markets and the free trading of goods globally, and also to reduce trade deficit and provide more jobs and more job security. The United States foreign policy of economic security is a very important goal. The United States is not only interested in the prosperity of its own people, it is also interested in the continuing help towards the transitional and third world countries, is also very important. For this is not only an act of humanitarian good, but also opens markets for everyone.

The free trade of goods and opening markets is one key to help expand the economic prosperity of the United States. Currently, the United State’s goal is to expand exports to 1.2 trillion dollars by 2002. However, to expand the global market, the United States must first work hard at trying to cut down the trade deficit. To make money by expanding globally the United States must open markets, but the United States must first reduce the trade deficit. By expanding exports it allows for free market growth with in the states. This creates more jobs for hard working Americans. The creation of more jobs allows for the creation of competition within the states to corner a certain global market. This competition allows for higher paying jobs to be created for more Americans to work at. Not only does competition help the American worker; it also helps out globally. Competition then stimulates the creation of quality control. Not only does a company want their own product to be the number one seller; they want to be known world wide as the best product with in their designated market. Also, along with competition come lay-offs. One thing that the American government would very much like to ensure is the security of jobs for all Americans, whether it is foreign or domestic. Some countries and some jobs do not provide security and instead instill the fear of losing the job. America would like to take minimize this threat and provide for more security, this would then allow for the continuing growth and improvement of life for all Americans.

Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall the fight between communism and democracy also carried an underlined battle. As communism is an economic driven form of government, democracy also brought with it an economic structure, capitalism. Americans believe in capitalism, it is what drives our country and its economy. The United States not only wants to spread the notion of free markets and capitalism globally, it also wants to send the idea of democracy. The idea that the government is not there to help themselves, but to help the people of whom they are governing. It is an ideology that the United States was founded upon and that most citizens believe in. The expansion of capitalism and democracy is an important goal of the United States

Another one of the economic foreign policy issues is the continuing expansion of third world and transitional country’s economies. Arising from the Cold War as a world leader, it would not do the United States any good if it did not help out underdeveloped nations. The United States in assets are rich and very powerful. One thing that the U.S believes in is the working towards a cohesive unilateral global economy. This should not only include the developed first and second world countries, but it should also be created to help the undeveloped nations. An American ideology has always been the equality of all people. The United States is very much an actor in, and one of its goals is, to help provide an “adrenaline” shot for undeveloped nation’s economies

Global Issues:

The United States has a lot of self-protection and self-enhancing foreign policy goals. However, there are foreign policy goals that are geared towards the preservation and enhancing of the better good for the entire global population. The United States had emerged from the Cold War as the key world leader, and must as a nation take responsibility for the helping out of all people. To be a leader, the United States must not just look at what is best for Americans, and then side step and not want to help out other nations. All nations live under the same sky, and to bring together countries and unite everyone is a very large goal for the United States.

One objective of the United States for a global relief and help is the basic preservation of human rights. The United States is a country that was founded upon and believes strongly that every man woman and child is created equally. To not step in and help when humans across the globe are getting mistreated and not shown the respect we believe to be a natural given right, is for us to be hypocritical. This is not to say however, if the United States is justified to go in to other nations with the full brunt of our armed forces to stop someone when the United States witnesses act of negative connotation against humanitarianism. No, the United States would not just hastily jump to war. However, to not intervene by the use of negotiations and talks is to ignore that a problem exists. The United States strongly believes that it needs to protect the basic humanitarian rights of all people.

There are other goals that the United States also has to help out nations globally. One goal is to help protect the environment against further damage. It is not good enough to protect the basic rights of people, if the people we are protecting do not have a place to live. With the protection of the environment also comes the protection for people against famine and disease. To see people die due to the lack of nutrition or the spread of infectious killer diseases correlates with lack of humanitarian rights protection.

Breakdown:

The United States has a very large capacity of armed forces. The armed forces capability gives the United States power in the world of international politics. The goals and objectives for the United States are all set not to make people happy and to look good down on paper, but because the United States actually believes in them and wishes to ascertain them. Some of these goals or objectives are set for protection of people, and some are set for the prosperity of the United States and other global sovereign nations. However how and to what extent and the United States breakdown the importance of each goal and objective? When will the United States flex the muscle of their large armed forces?

What goals and objectives will the United States go to war to protect against or stress? It sounds like an oxymoron, but one of the only times the United States will actually go to war against another sovereign nation, or international group is to protect against war. If the United States foresees an act of aggression towards any other group of people by the building up of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons the United States will immediately and promptly move into to protect against further aggression of this type. As stated above the United States FIRMLY believes in the stoppage of the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. What else is an act of aggression? The only other time that the United States would go to war would be if there were military attacks against the United States. This includes America and its territories of influence. These goals and objectives are of vital interest to the United States.

What then is still of great importance to the United States? There are two goals that the United States would strongly consider going to war to protect against. These two objectives do not rank as high as the ones stated above, however, they do get very strong consideration. The first of these two is the hostile aggression and advancement against either Europe or Asia. These countries are our allies and the protection of them is key an essential for not only the national security of the United States, but also protection of humanitarian rights. Another strongly considered objective is the protection of the global economic structure. When a country or a group tries to cause chaos, disrupt, or even destroy the global economic structure as the world has built it, it then becomes an internal and an external issue. The collapse of the globe structure would cause great distress and disarray internally as global markets and jobs would be loss. This would cause the United States to go into an utter state of chaos. Protection of that is a strongly considered goal and objective.

There are other important issues that the United States is worried about, such as protecting and making sure that all of the foreign policy goals and objectives are achieved. Some of these are the advancement of the economic stability and progression of Africa. The United States does also not just want to protect Europe and Asia, however they want to also remain good friends with them as well as our other surrounding neighbors. Protection of human rights is also under the category as highly regarded goals of the United States. These were just a few examples of the very important United States believes in.

The fact of the matter is that the United States would go to war immediately only if directly attacked, or if the aggressive stockpiling on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons was happening. Otherwise, the U.S, while believing that all goals and objectives are important would carefully look at the situation and weigh what is actually happening and what effects, be it negative or positive the “act” would have on the United States directly and globally.

The United States has broad and vague foreign policy goals and objectives. For the most part the United States looks at what the current event is that is happening and how it will affect nations globally and nationally. The only clear stance that the United States takes is the stopping of proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and also the direct attack of American soil. The United States is international actors that strives to not only better themselves, but to better every nation globally. They do this through expansions of markets economically, to the protecting of human rights. The United States is not hostile, but has the means to be if necessary. The United States strives to promote peace and to bring everyone together globally.

MILITARY, ECONOMIC CAPABILITES, AND RESOURCES

“When it’s vital interest are challenged or the will of the international community is defied, the United States will act with peaceful diplomacy wherever possible with force when necessary.”

President Clinton 20 Jan ‘93 Inaugural Address

The United States’ Department of Defense is the largest agency of national government. The mission of the DOD is to prevent, deter and defeat threats to America’s security interest by using military forces. It has the major responsibility for the military security of the U.S. The Department of Defense’s main objective is to guard against and to repel all hostile forces foreign, and domestic perceived as threats to the interests, security and sovereignty of the United States. The DOD is a cabinet-level organization. The four armed services are subordinate to their military departments. These include the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps.

The main components consist of 14 defense agencies, 9 unified combatant commands and 7 field activities. As of January 2000, there are 1.4 million active duty forces, and 1.35 million ready and stand by reserves. As of June 1999, there are 703,000 civilian employees. The standing forces include ten active Army divisions, three Marine divisions, thirteen active and seven reserve Air Force fighter wings. Twelve aircraft carrier battle groups (11 active), plus 7,200 deployed nuclear warheads, which have the capability to launch from the ground, affixed to mx and minuteman missiles, by sea from Trident submarines and by air from B-52 and B-2 bombers.

Conventional forces provide a large sum of the nation’s military power consisting of combat and support elements from all four Services, excluding units dedicated to special operations and nuclear deterrence. Land, naval, aviation, and mobility forces are the major categories of conventional forces. These forces provide the ability to support the defense strategies for the U.S. They focus on shaping the international environment and responding to a full range of crisis. Deployed forces shape the international environment in ways, which are most favorable to the United States’ interest. Forward deployments have been concentrated in Europe, Pacific, and Southwest Asia. These deployments include:

I. Pacific- One Army mechanized division, two Air Force fighter wing-equivalents, one Marine Expeditionary Force, one Navy carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group with an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit. Pacific region forward-based forces include 1.25 fighter wing-equivalents in Alaska and one light infantry division in Hawaii.

II. Europe- Forward elements of one Army armored and one Army mechanized infantry division, one carrier battle group, 2.3 Air Force fighter wing-equivalents, and one amphibious ready group with an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit.

III. Southwest Asia- One amphibious ready group with an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit, one Air Force fighter wing-equivalent, and one carrier battle group.

As needs present themselves, all four Services periodically deploy forces to forward locations, which involve both active and reserve components units, with propositioned U.S. equipment and material contributing substantially to overseas presence.

The U.S. policy since the end of World War II has been to have enough conventional military power to protect American citizens and interest against communists or other challenges, while developing and stockpiling nuclear and chemical weapons. There is a constant task of collecting, evaluating, coordinating, and disseminating information about the behavior of potential enemies and creating and maintaining military alliances. Supplying allies and friendly countries with arms and other forms of assistance essential to their defense. Also, to provide humanitarian relief to victims of natural or man made disasters at home and abroad. Some of these goals are the preparedness for conventional and nuclear warfare to posses a credible capability to project decisive military force wherever American interest are threatened and to win two major regional conflicts simultaneously.

In the fiscal year (FY1999) the U.S. spent over $276 billion on its military this includes the

Pentagon, Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons program and more than $27 billion is spent on intelligence agencies. This $27 billion is spent, half on tactical military intelligence and half one the intelligence agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency. The $276 billion does not include the cost of military pensions or the Veteran’s Administration, which is another $43 billion in FY 1999. This also does not include the military’s share of the national debt. The U.S. accounts for about 1/3 of the world’s military expenditures and more than all other NATO allies combined.

With allies and friends, the U.S. accounts for about ¾ of global military spending. Eight of the world’s ten largest military budgets belong to the allies of the U.S. However, the U.S. provides less of its wealth to support the impoverished abroad than any other industrial country and spends less than 1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) an official development assistance and the same amount on other aid-related activities (including peacekeeping), have fallen 30% percent since 1991 in constant dollars.

The Department of Defense’s budget is second to that of entitlements, such as social security and Medicare. Specifically, the Pentagon budget includes over 220,000 civilian employees almost 40% percent of the total executive branch is civilian personnel. The Secretary of the Navy reports each day of the year more than 50,000 sailors/Marines and over 100 ships are deployed around the world. The U.S. forward-deployed all in a high state of readiness consisting of 100,000 U.S. forces in Europe, 100,000 in the Pacific, and 20,000 in Persian Gulf region. In addition, the military has bases in several locations in and outside of the U.S. and propositioned equipment afloat and ashore in the Persian Gold region, Indian Ocean, Korea and Europe. Collectively these allow the presence of substantial U.S. deterrent forces in various regions of the world. To complement these forces, the U.S. also has carrier battle groups, Marine Expeditionary Units, and Air Expeditionary Forces to provide, “highly mobile deterrent forces ready for deployment anywhere in the world.

Potential regional aggressors whom possess a range of capabilities could threaten U.S. military operations. Threats to the U.S. would be situations involving dictators, conduits for drug traffickers and identified sponsors of international terrorism. Some others would be to repel an aggressor against its neighbors, a threat to U.S. friends and interest, humanitarian interventions, peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Others are armed rebels and insurgents against communist-supported regimes. These threats, which are likely to expand in the future as a result of the proliferation of modern military technology, include increasingly capable air, sea, and land-based weapons. U.S. forces simultaneously must be prepared to face the potential challenges of asymmetric threats, such as the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, an increase in terrorism, an d information warfare. U.S. forces must maintain a substantial advantage over potential adversaries capable of employing advanced weapon systems to ensure quick and decisive victory with minimum casualties.

The U.S. strongly believes in establishing the American economic security through free trade, open door to commerce of all nations, freedom of the seas as highways of commerce. Foreign policy promotes the economic security and quality of life-education, health care, housing and employment. To do this requires the availability of resources to further American industrial development and production measures and mean of securing the resources, markets for American trade and foreign investment, and the fostering of equitable economic conditions such as free trade, goodwill and prosperity among nations.

The U.S. military is the best equipped, best prepared, fighting force in the world history. It represents only a 4% world’s population but produces 21% of its gross product. We are the home of revolutions that are changing and transforming the world, these are such as telecommunications and biotechnology. Books written in American now have a 32% share of the world market, music recorded in the US occupies 60% of the world market, pre-packaged software now dominates 75% of the World’s market. Since 1993, the U.S. has increased its exports by 40% and is the world’s largest exporter. There is 32% of our economy that is tied to trade and investments overseas. By the year 2000, we are likely to be selling one trillion a year in goods and service overseas. Those exports support sixteen million jobs at home, jobs that pay well above the national average. Afghanistan is “oil rich” and the Persian Gulf region is a major source of energy for the U.S. and Western Europe.

Foreign military financing programs to purchase foreign weapons continue to be the single largest component of “security assistance” contained in the international affairs budget. Bilateral assistance programs skewed towards security concerns rather than economic, development and social needs. U.S. weapons manufacturers began to focus more attention on foreign markets as a way to sustain their profit margins. Weapon exports are often more profitable than sales of weaponry to the pentagon.

FRIENDS AND FOES

In today's post-Cold War world, U.S. foreign policy faces a plethora of uncertainties in the economic, social and political spheres. With the geopolitical order currently reduced to one major superpower, the new order is still quite amorphous. For such reasons, politicians, economists, military strategists and others in Washington have sought to answer the question, "Is there any particular country that has the potential to rise to the level of a regional, or even global, hegemony in the 21^stcentury?" Evidence suggests so, and the country that has placed itself on the path of fulfilling that prophecy is the People's Republic of China (PRC). A 1994 study showed in 1980, the PRC accounted for only 3.6% of the world's gross domestic product and 0.8 % of its exports of manufactured goods. It estimates that, by 2010, the PRC could account for 15.5% of the world's GDP and 6.4% of its exports of manufactured goods. Clearly, China is poised to assert much more influence on world affairs in the coming century. For this reason, foreign policy towards China has been debated under the realm of two distinct policies, engagement and containment. Engagement seeks to encourage China’s involvement in multilateral agreements and its membership in international organizations as a means of promote Beijing’s respect and adherence to international norms. Containment, on the other hand, adopts a more defensive approach. Its advocates point to the security risks inherent in accepting China into the international community. The policy proposes counterbalancing China in a method similar to that used with Russia during the Cold War. The challenge for the United States is to examine these two policies and determine which will be most effective in promoting U.S. interests vis-à-vis an emerging China. Furthermore, in terms of security, engagement would likely promote political objectives with China that are complementary to those of its trading partners and neighbors, most notably the United States.

Since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of Russia as an independent state in 1991, the United States has developed a broad-based relationship with Russia. In twelve personal meetings since 1993, President Clinton and President Yeltsin have laid the foundation for a bilateral relationship based on cooperation. The United States remains committed to maintaining a constructive relationship with Russia in which we seek to expand areas of cooperation and frankly air our differences without confrontation. The United States and the NATO Allies have cooperated closely with Russia to strengthen European security and create an undivided Europe. On May 27, NATO and Russia concluded a "Founding Act" that establishes the basis for a new relationship between NATO and Russia, along with a NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council as a mechanism for consultation, cooperation and, as appropriate, joint action on issues of mutual concern. The Founding Act builds on the successful cooperation between Russia and NATO in Bosnia. The United States and Russia have also worked to enhance the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has assumed a leading role in resolving conflicts and strengthening democratic institutions in the region. The United States and Russia are co-sponsors of the Middle East Peace Process and consult closely on this and other regional issues.

Cooperation is also expanding in efforts to combat global problems such as organized crime, narcotics trafficking and environmental degradation. Great strides have been made in reducing both sides' nuclear arsenals and enhancing controls over weapons of mass destruction, including measures to avoid their proliferation. The U.S. is working with Russia to improve accountability standards for nuclear material and to dismantle hundreds of Russian nuclear weapons. Such cooperation takes place under the umbrella of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program and numerous Defense and Energy Department activities. We continue to urge Russia to ratify START II, which would reduce overall deployments of strategic nuclear weapons on each side by more than two-thirds from current levels and would eliminate the most destabilizing strategic weapons--heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and all other deployed multiple-warhead ICBMs. Despite these areas of agreement, the United States and Russia continue to differ on a number of issues. On several occasions at the highest levels the United States has encouraged Russia to curtail its nuclear cooperation with Iran. In addition, notwithstanding the conclusion of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, Russian officials oppose the further enlargement of NATO. The United States supports Russia's accession to global economic organizations such as the WTO, OECD, the Paris Club, and the Asian Development Bank. The U.S. is the largest foreign investor in Russia, with portfolio and direct investments of approximately $3 billion. Though in its embryonic stages, bilateral trade is increasing and a growing number of non-defense jobs in both countries now rely on this commerce. We continue to encourage the Russians to make progress on legislation and administrative changes necessary to create a more favorable investment climate for foreign and domestic investors in Russia.

At the grass-roots level, contacts between our countries are growing. We now issue about 100,000 visitor visas annually to Russians, compared to around 20,000 during the Soviet era. Our governments support hundreds of joint programs, many of them conducted through the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission (GCC). The establishment of the GCC has helped to advance significantly shared objectives in our bilateral relations. The eighth GCC meeting in February 1997 showcased several examples: a new regional investment initiative to attract more foreign and domestic capital to the regions of Russia; joint work to protect the marine ecosystem near Sakhalin Island; an initiative to support cooperation among small businesses; and a program to raise public awareness in Russia of women's reproductive health issues. The eight working committees of the Commission deal with business development, defense conversion, agricultural, space, energy, health, and environmental issues. In addition, the Commission provides a forum for high-level discussions of security, nonproliferation, economic, and other priority issues.

Since 1991, the relations between the United States and Russia have reflected the impact of multiple transitions. The world has been adjusting to the aftermath of a Cold War that had defined the previous half-century. Russia itself has been seeking to reconfirm its identity, not only on a post-communist, post-Soviet basis, but also on a post-imperial basis, since the country is now roughly confined within borders it has not known since the seventeenth century. Europe has been trying to readjust its economic, political and security relationship as a whole continent rather than one divided by an Iron Curtain.

The United States, as the surviving superpower, has had the task of determining what role it will play and how it can help to fashion a New World order. Even as change in the very elements of national power and the structure of international relations foreshadows the emergence of a new multi-polar world. A number of frictions have also arisen in the United States-Russian bilateral relationship. As earlier noted, some of these stemmed from the initial self-effacing posture of the Russian government in 1992 and 1993, to which the United States became accustomed. Many prominent Americans in Congress and the public seem to have had difficulty in distinguishing the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union from the emergence of Russia as its principal successor; there has been a tendency to treat Russia as a defeated adversary rather than a liberated successor. Many political figures in Russia, in turn, have been disposed to see the West, and above all the United States, as determined to maintain or expand its global hegemony and to keep Russia down and weak. Thus there has been some concern in the United States with what is sometimes seen as Russian "neo-imperialism," or an attempt to restore hegemony in the "near abroad" as many Russians refer to the other republics of the former Soviet Union. There also was a backlash of negative reaction to the protracted internal war in the breakaway Russian republic of Chechnya in 1994-1996.

REGIONAL OR GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ALLIANCES

The United States of America is heavily involved in many regional and global organizations. They are a part of the United Nations, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The International Labor Organization, International Monetary, International Court of Justice, The Organization of American States, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North American Free Trade Agreement, and the World Trade Organization. The United States plays a huge role in each of these global organizations. An explanation of each global organization follows beneath:

United Nations (UN), an international organization of countries created to promote world peace and cooperation. The UN was founded after World War II ended in 1945. Its mission is to maintain world peace, develop good relations between countries, promote cooperation in solving the world’s problems, and encourage respect for human rights. The UN is an alliance of countries that agree to cooperate with one another. It brings together countries that are rich and poor, large and small, and have different social and political systems. Member nations pledge to settle their disputes peacefully, to refrain from using force or the threat of force against other countries, and to refuse help to any country that opposes UN actions.

UN memberships are open to any country willing to further the UN mission and abide by its rules. Each country, no matter how large or small, has an equal voice and vote. Each country is also expected to pay dues to support the UN. As of 1997, the UN had 185 members, including nearly every country in the world. The UN’s influence in world affairs has fluctuated over the years, but the organization has gained new prominence in the 1990s. Still, the UN faces many challenges. It must overcome the worst financial crisis in its history. In addition, the UN must continually secure the cooperation of its member nations because the organization has little independent power or authority. However getting that support is not always easy, many nations are reluctant to defer their own authority and follow the dictates of the UN.

International Court of Justice, United Nations, also known as World Court, principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was created in 1945 under the UN Charter as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice under the League of Nations. The court functions in accordance with its own statute, which forms an integral part of the UN Charter. The main task of the court is to decide legal cases between nations; private persons may not bring cases before the court. All members of the UN are parties to the statute of the World Court, as are three nonmember states, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and San Marino. A nation that is not a party to the statute may use the court if it accepts, either in general or in a given case, the obligations of a member of the UN.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, also known as the World Bank, specialized United Nations agency, established at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. A related institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), was created at the same time. The chief objectives of the bank, as stated in the articles of agreement, are “to assist in the reconstruction and development of territories of members by facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes [and] to promote private foreign investment by means of guarantees or participation in loans [and] to supplement private investment by providing, on suitable conditions, finance for productive purposes out of its own capital. The bank grants loans only to member nations, for the purpose of financing specific projects. Before a nation can secure a loan, advisers and experts representing the bank must determine that the prospective borrower can meet conditions stipulated by the bank. Most of these conditions are designed to ensure that loans will be used productively and that they will be repaid. The bank requires that the borrower be unable to secure a loan for the particular project from any other source on reasonable terms and that the prospective project be technically feasible and economically sound. To ensure repayment, member governments must guarantee loans made to private concerns within their territories. After the loan has been made, the bank requires periodic reports both from the borrower and from its own observers on the use of the loan and on the progress of the project.

In the early period of the World Bank's existence, loans were granted chiefly to European countries and were used for the reconstruction of industries damaged or destroyed during World War II. Since the late 1960s, however, most loans have been granted to economically developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In the 1980s the bank gave particular attention to projects that could directly benefit the poorest people in developing nations by helping them to raise their productivity and to gain access to such necessities as safe water and waste-disposal facilities, health care, family-planning assistance, nutrition, education, and housing. Direct involvement of the poorest people in economic activity was being promoted by providing loans for agriculture and rural development, small-scale enterprises, and urban development. The bank also was expanding its assistance to energy development and ecological concerns.

International Monetary Fund (IMF), specialized agency of the United Nations, established, along with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference held in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The IMF began operations in 1947. Its purpose is to promote international monetary cooperation to facilitate the expansion of international trade. The IMF is a permanent forum for consideration of issues of international payments, in which member nations are encouraged to maintain an orderly pattern of exchange rates and to avoid restrictive exchange practices. Membership included 181 countries in 1995 and is open to all independent nations.

International Labor Organization (ILO), a specialized agency associated with the United Nations (UN), whose worldwide objectives are to improve labor conditions, promote productive employment and social progress, and raise living standards. The ILO was established in 1919 as an autonomous part of the League of Nations and brought into formal relationship with the UN in 1946. The organization was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1969. The ILO is composed of 170 member nations and differs from other UN agencies because representatives of employers and workers, as well as government officials, take part in its work. Each member nation sends four delegates: two from the government, one employer, and one worker. The organization's principal organ, the International Labor Conference, meets annually in Geneva, Switzerland, to define and ratify international labor standards. The organization does this by means of conventions, which are subject to voluntary ratification by member nations, and recommendations that provide nations with detailed guidelines for legislation.

The ILO sets standards that cover child labor, disabled workers, discrimination, equality of treatment, freedom of association, human rights, maternity protection, pensions, and the elimination of forced labor. The organization supervises the application of ratified conventions in national law and practice. Employers' and workers' organizations and member nations' governments have the right to lodge formal complaints with the ILO. The ILO also provides technical assistance to member nations in order to facilitate the adoption and enforcement of ILO standards. Technical cooperation programs cover employment promotion, management, and training; labor administration and industrial relations; social security; and working conditions, occupational safety, and health. The ILO's governing body has 56 members: 28 represent governments (10 of which hold permanent seats as states of chief industrial importance), 14 represent employers, and 14 represent workers. Non-permanent members are elected by the Conference every three years. The Governing Body appoints the director-general and drafts the organization's budget that is funded by member states. ILO headquarters is in Geneva, Switzerland, and the organization maintains field offices in 40 countries.

Organization of American States (OAS) is a regional organization for nations of the Western Hemisphere. Founded in 1948 in Bogotá, Colombia, the OAS facilitates cooperation between member countries on matters of security and economic and social development. Membership includes all 35 nations in the hemisphere. Since 1962 the OAS has excluded Cuba from active participation because of its espousal of Marxist-Leninist principles.

The OAS both administers and extends to all nations in the Western Hemisphere the collective defense guarantee established through the Rio Treaty of 1947. This treaty requires its members to assist other member nations that face armed attack. The OAS also seeks to prevent military disputes within the hemisphere by pursuing the peaceful settlement of conflicts among its members and promotes respect for human rights and representative democracy. In addition, the OAS supports regional efforts that encourage economic, social, and cultural development within the hemisphere’s poorer nations.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a regional defense alliance, created by the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed on April 4, 1949. The original signatories were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United States. Greece and Turkey were admitted to the alliance in 1952, West Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982. NATO's purpose is to enhance the stability, well being, and freedom of its members by means of a system of collective security. In 1990 the newly unified Germany replaced West Germany as a NATO member.

In the years after World War II (1939-1945), many Western leaders saw the policies of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as threatening to stability and peace. The forcible installation of Communist governments throughout Eastern Europe, territorial demands by the Soviets, and their support of guerrilla war in Greece and regional separatism in Iran appeared to many as the first steps of World War III. Such events prompted the signing of the Dunkirk Treaty in 1947 between Britain and France, pledging common defense against aggression. Subsequent events, including the rejection by Eastern European nations of the European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) and the creation of Cominform, a European Communist organization, in 1947, led to the Brussels Treaty signed by most Western European countries in 1948. Among the goals of that pact was the collective defense of its members. The Berlin blockade that began in March 1948 led to negotiations between Western Europe, Canada, and the United States that resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), pact that calls for the gradual removal of tariffs and other trade barriers on most goods produced and sold in North America. NAFTA became effective in Canada, Mexico, and the United States on January 1, 1994. NAFTA forms the world's second largest free-trade zone, bringing together 365 million consumers in Canada, Mexico, and the United States in an open market. The largest free-trade zone is the European Economic Area (which includes the members of the European Union and the European Free Trade Association), which also became effective in 1994.

NAFTA was built upon a 1989-trade agreement between the United States and Canada that eliminated or reduced many tariffs between the two countries. NAFTA called for immediately eliminating duties on half of all U.S. goods shipped to Mexico and gradually phasing out other tariffs over a period of about 14 years. Restrictions are to be removed from many categories, including motor vehicles and automotive parts, computers, textiles, and agriculture. The treaty also protected intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and outlined the removal of restrictions on investment among the three countries. Mandates for minimum wages, working conditions, and environmental protection were added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1993.

In December 1992 the leaders of the three countries signed NAFTA—Brian Mulroney of Canada, Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico, and George Bush of the United States. After a lengthy debate, the legislatures in all three countries approved NAFTA in 1993. In the United States, the debate over NAFTA divided members of both the Democratic and Republican parties and ignited fierce opposition from environmental and labor groups. Many feared that jobs would be lost because the agreement would facilitate the movement of U.S. production plants to Mexico, where plants could take advantage of cheaper labor and lax enforcement of environmental and workers' rights laws. Environmental groups were concerned that pollution and food safety controls would be more difficult to enforce. In response to these concerns, Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed supplemental agreements in 1993 that addressed some of these issues. The Congress of the United States narrowly approved NAFTA in November 1993.

Talks began in late 1994 to expand NAFTA to include all Latin American nations—with the exception of Cuba, the only country in the region with a Communist government. These talks include plans to create a free-trade zone throughout the Americas in the 21st century, but including more countries in NAFTA is expected to be difficult. Some countries are far from being able to agree to and implement the stringent economic requirements of a free-trade accord. Formal negotiations to include Chile in NAFTA began in 1995.

World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international body that promotes and enforces the provisions of trade laws and regulations. The World Trade Organization has the authority to administer and police new and existing free trade agreements, to oversee world trade practices, and to settle trade disputes among member states. The WTO was established in 1994 when the members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty and international trade organization, signed a new trade pact. The WTO was created to replace GATT.

The WTO began operation on January 1, 1995. GATT and the WTO coexisted until December 1995, when the members of GATT met for the last time. Although the WTO replaced GATT, the trade agreements established by GATT in 1994 are part of the WTO agreement. However, the WTO has a significantly broader scope than GATT. GATT regulated trade in merchandise goods. The WTO expanded the GATT agreement to include trade in services, such as international telephone service, and protections for intellectual property—that is, creative works that can be protected legally, such as sound recordings and computer programs. The WTO is also a formally structured organization whose rules is legally binding on its member states. The organization provides a framework for international trade law. Members can refer trade disputes to the WTO where a dispute panel composed of WTO officials serves as arbitrator. Members can appeal this panel's rulings to a WTO appellate body whose decisions are final. Disputes must be resolved within the time limits set by WTO rules.

As of 1996 almost all of the 123 nations that had signed the new GATT pact had transferred membership to the WTO, including the United States. About 30 other nations had also applied for membership. The WTO is based in Geneva, Switzerland, and is controlled by a general council made up of member states' ambassadors who also serve on various subsidiary and specialist committees. The ministerial conference, which meets every two years and appoints the WTO's director-general, oversees the General Council. Renato Ruggiero, a former Italian trade minister, became the first full-time director-general of the WTO in May 1995. The agreements that the WTO will administer are expected to increase annual world trade by at least $755 billion by the year 2002.

FIVE DOMESTIC VARIABLES

In the traditional conception, political units treated almost as personalities conduct international relations. The domestic structure is taken as given, foreign policy begins where domestic policy ends. The quality of predictability in the case of the United States policy is a result of the fact that the policy of this country has a deep historical foundation. It is the sum total of a large group of actions, and one treaty does not make foreign policy, and neither does a single war treaty. Foreign policy is the System of activities involved by communities for changing the behavior of other states and for adjusting their own government. To argue that external forces do not shape American foreign policy at least partially and foreign conditions would be to forget that nations actions abroad are necessarily affected by what others do and by shifts in what the international environment renders predict. The domestic factors do not alone determine how the United States acts, but they do influence how decision-makers may choose to act, and to do that degree they serve as sources of foreign policy.

I- IDIOSYNCRATIC VARIABLE

Idiosyncratic variables and their probable consequences for the American foreign policy-making process reflect the insight and wisdom of the authors of the Constitution. They crafted a political system of shared powers and checks and balances in which political power in not vested in a single institution or a single public official. Thus although the president ultimately chooses the foreign policy his administration pursues, that foreign policy is frequently a result of interactions among several forces in both the external environment and the American political bureaucratic environment. In the American political system, foreign policy is a “dispersed enterprise” which is never clear-cut or neat. Personality traits of individual American political actors, bureaucratic factors, governmental structures and processes, national values and beliefs historical experiences, size, natural resources, and the structure of American society all are crucial variables that influence and constrain American foreign policy.

II- SOCIETAL VARIABLE

THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL VALUES. Many people seem to view the process of foreign policy making as some how “above politics”. National interests are put ahead of group or personal interests. The societal factors that conceivably could be linked to the direction of American foreign policy are almost infinite in number, limited only by analyst’s imaginations. But readers are encouraged to speculate about the extent to which the nation’s capacity to act, and its course of action abroad, is influenced by other societal characteristics and changes in them, such as the economic growth rate, resource availability, racial divisions, and the degree of civil unrest.

POLITICAL CULTURE AND FOREIGN POLICY. The concept of political culture can provide insight into the domestic sources of American foreign policy to the extent that Americans share basic needs values, beliefs and self-images. Those orientations and national values may be linked to the kinds of policies pursued abroad by the United States.

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC OPINION, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND THE MASS MEDIA. Most Americans expect their attitudes and opinions to be considered when their leaders promulgate policies. Foreign policies, like domestic ones, are assumed to be related to, and derived from, a presumably important set of attitudes and wants. For no other reason than the democratic theory leaders are selected to represent and serve the interests of their constituents. There is absence of basic knowledge of American public in foreign affairs, which seems to come from lack of interest. In fact more Americans can identify the winner of the Super Bowl than identify the most elementary facts about their political system.

Public interest appears to rise only when people perceive that their lives and live hoods are directly affected. Given the diversity of American public and the dictates of national security interest, president, find it necessary, to conduct foreign affairs contrary to public opinion. However, doing so does not negate the essential impact of public opinion on the American foreign policy process. Public opinion can cause the national government to change an existing policy or to abandon an unpopular policy. Public opinion tends to be superficial and subject to rapid changes as events occurs. Consequently, policy-makers do not always depend on public support for difficult decisions about foreign policy.

The press and public conventionally view elections alike as opportunities for policy changes. The extent that elections serve to translate the public voice, interests and attitudes into policy means that elections change political leaders. Leaders tend to alter, modify or routinely continue domestic and foreign affairs. However electoral results tend to depend largely on domestic issues rather than a foreign policy. Because most voters are not knowledgeable about foreign policy issues, its is difficult to determine whether people vote for candidates because of their stand on foreign policy or despite it.

POLITICAL PARTIES AND FOREIGN POLICY. American’s two major political parties influence the foreign policy process in two important ways. The first is by controlling elective political offices. The second one is through criticism of a debate over the foreign policy initiatives of those who control executive and legislative offices. This criticism may be partisan, or it may be influenced on an individual politician’s stand on foreign policy.

THE MASS MEDIA. A potentially important component in the public opinion-foreign policy is the role played by the media –television, press, and radio. The mass communications industry may be hypothesized to play a central role in the process of policy formulation. Many Americans are apparently taken with the theory that their attitudes about international politics are shaped by the mass media. And most see the media and its information as a cause of public opinion.

III- GOVERNMENTAL VARIABLE

U.S. CONSTITUTION AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADVISERS

The president’s preeminent position in the foreign affairs of the government derives in part from the authority granted to him or her from the Constitution, even though the expression “foreign affairs” is not found in the Constitution. The constitution also has provision to ensure that officials of the executive and legislative branches of the national government are responsive to the wishes of the American people in their conduct of their nation’s domestic and foreign affairs. But the totality of presidential power is much greater than that of governing treaties and ambassadors. Constitution also makes the president the nation’s chief legislative and executive officer and the commander in chief of its armed forces.

The Constitution divides authority for the conduct and management of foreign relations between the executive and legislative branches of government, is not sufficient in it to explain the distribution of decision-making authority over foreign affairs. In a number of areas, the constitutional decision of authority in foreign affairs between Congress and president is ambiguous. This derives from the fact that the Constitution works by interpretation.

In principle, the president’s greatest resource is the vast federal executive establishment, which he heads. Most federal personnel are in the executive branch of government, where collectively they bear responsibility for making and executing the full range of American domestic and foreign policies.

THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Traditionally, three organizations have dominated the entire foreign process –Department of State, Department of Defense, and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Four organizational newcomers have joined the three traditional foreign affairs' bureaucracies: Department of Treasury, Commerce and Agriculture, and the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, these last three are known as domestic bureaucracies.

The Department of State is the principal foreign relation's management agency of the executive branch. Its activities range form negotiation of treaties an other agreements with other nations, to representing the nation in international organizations, to making policy recommendations and taking step to implement them on virtually the entire range of foreign relations and interests. It is a relatively modest bureaucracy, currently numbering about 24,800 employees; of this number 4,000 diplomatic and consular service officers' staff about 250 U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. The Clinton administration’s request for the total foreign affairs budget for 1998, including the Department of State was $19.4 billion.

The Secretary of State is the State Department’s highest-ranking official. The incumbent is traditionally the president’s principal adviser and spokesperson in foreign affairs, is also the officer in charge of the department and, constitutionally fourth in line, after the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to succeed the president. The current Secretary of State is Madeleine Korbel Albright, the first woman incumbent.

THE ROLE OF CONGRESS IN FOREIGN POLICY-MAKING. In Congressional interest and involvement in the foreign policy-making process a general rule will tend to increase in proportion to the relevance of a “foreign” issue to “domestic” concerns. The domestic consequences of decisions regarding war and how money is to be spent are sufficiently great so as to thrust Congress to act intensively. But other allegedly “foreign policy” issues –such as immigration and draft registration policy– exert a strong domestic impact and can be expected to provoke congressional participation in debate of the issue as a matter of course. Congress is more oriented toward domestic than foreign affairs and the inward, home-base focus of senators and representatives means that interests in and attention to foreign policy issues will be short-lived, with the duration determined by how newsworthy the issue is. Also, Congress affects most the way in which policy is debated within the executive branch; it becomes part of the ultimate decision-making process even if only by affecting the various political forces involved there.

IV- ROLE VARIABLE

Many different people, widely dispersed throughout the government, contribute to the making of foreign policy. The role and the process, rather than the characteristics, of either which they are made, influence the courses of action the United States pursues abroad.

Role theory holds that although the actual behavior of any individual can be distinguished from the role he/she assumes, each position (role) carries with it certain expectations and demands of how it should be performed. These images and expectations are assumed to influence the behavior of anyone filling a particular role. Policy-makers are not immune to this. Each role in the decision-making carries with it expectations, obligations and images of appropriate behavior, pressures which tend to make a new occupant think and act like his predecessor. While campaigning, Jimmy Carter criticized Henry Kissinger’s “personal diplomacy” and advocated less emphasis on private talks with foreign leaders. In his first seven months in office, he played host to eighteen foreign heads of state, and his secretary of state appeared to have been out of the country more often than not.

A focus on the importance of roles in decision-making also enables us to deal with change in foreign policy, because policy change when it occurs, it may derives from changes in the structural characteristics of the major policy-making roles. Policy modification may be a product of role transformation.

DECISION-MAKING ROLES OF BUREAUCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS. A decision alone is of course not a policy; to decide what to do does not mean that the process is done. Foreign policy is more than what president’s decide it is what bureaucracies carry out. In practice, the president depends on those in the foreign affairs government to get things done. Some trouble questions have been raised by past presidents who were unable to control the government they were elected to run. The subordinates working the foreign affairs machinery have often appeared insubordinate rather than helping to get things done, they have opposed presidential directives, and the chief executive consequently has been frustrated in gaining affective control of foreign policy. The reasons for the seeming lack of innovation in policy are many.

They include constrains on changed imposed by the international environment, by domestic society and by the separation of powers within the federal government. Bureaucrats in charge of the different agencies usually disagree; they want different policies and define the situation differently because of their differing vantage points.

The nature of the administrative structures also affects America’s foreign policy because its vast array of government agencies and organizations often differ over approach and compete for control over foreign policy making. Bureaucratic norms and standard operational procedures, therefore, can result in inefficient decision-making structures that may be at cross-purposes because of conflicting personal interests and ambitions.

V- SYSTEMIC VARIABLE

AMERICA’S GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, SIZE AND NATURAL RESOURCES. Are the critical background factors that make some foreign policy options possible while limiting the feasibility of others? The Unites States had a long period of invulnerability. The protection provided by vast oceans gives it a sense of security. Furthermore, it is richly endowed with a vast array of natural resources. Its population was and has continued to be, fed and replenished by a constant stream of skilled immigrants in search of economic opportunity, education and political and religious freedom. As critical background factors these determined the scope and complexity of American foreign policy. They also made global aspirations inevitable, even though for years before World War II America was reluctant about global leadership. The nations' size its abundant human and natural resources, its industrialization collectively enhance its ability to be an activist and a leader in world affairs. America’s location in the Western Hemisphere, separated and distant from the older and more powerful European nations and unencumbered by any permanent major rival in its own region. The founders’ choices –political noninvolvement in world affairs; economic and cultural alignment with other nations of the world- remained for years the guiding principles of the nation’s foreign policy. Economic and cultural alignment with other nations of the world enlarged America’s economic, intellectual, and cultural horizons. The achievement of these ends prepared the United States, in the fullness of time, for a more activist role in world affairs.

NATIONALISM AND IDEOLOGY

UNITED STATES NATIONALISM:

"The word nationalism is itself of very recent creation. Bertier Sauvigny believes it first appeared in literature in 1798 and did not reappear until 1830. All of the examples of its early use convey the idea of identification not with the state, but with the nation as properly understood as a 'people'. While unable to pinpoint nationalism's subsequent association with the state, it indubitably followed and flowed from the tendency to equate state and nation in the United States."

-Connor, 1983

The fact that nationalism is the impulse of a nation to form itself into a modern state explains why nationalism is necessarily a modern phenomenon in the United States. By definition, nationalism is the desire by people with a sense of self-identity as a nation to control their own affairs and possibly to exclude others from them. So, the very conditions that made this modern state possible have affected the idea of national identity in a profound way. Those conditions include the capacity to consolidate and standardize a population into a mass society through new, expansive patterns of commerce, industry, transportation, communication, education, and factors associated with the rise of modern capitalism of the United States. Nationalism must cope with the universalistic demands of mass democracy and the equal rights of the governed that are implicit in a legal-rational political system. In this country, an individual is viewed as an equivalent member of a vast community in a modern democratic country.

The national ideal is in part a multiethnic and nondiscriminatory one, expressed inclusively in terms of a "people of peoples." This is commonly referred to as "liberal nationalism." Though never entirely free of countervailing tendencies, liberal nationalism inclines to support and institutionalize universalistic norms of nondiscrimination and free exercise, it is more in accord with human rights imperatives. The implication is that liberal nationalism contributes to the conditions of peace by cultivating ethnic and religious respect and harmony. The United States favors clear territorial boundaries that distinguish it from foreigners and aliens. In fact, sovereignty over a sharply defined community of inhabitants and a sharply defined territory is one of the hallmarks of the United States.

American nationalism rests fundamentally on the ideals of citizenship and an involved commitment to common civic participation in accord with constitutional norms. Therefore, this country, in justifying a claim to state authority, advances basic national beliefs as worthy of political expression and enforcement. Its citizens and leaders see the United States as a great example to other regions of the world in domestic and foreign policy. Some call America, "the solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights," and "the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government." Furthermore, Woodrow Wilson said that, "the force of America is the force of moral principles." Because U.S. leaders perceive their country as the liberation of humankind, they justify the containment of communism, and the defense of free nations on moral grounds. Communism is perceived generally by Americans as inherently evil, totalitarian, anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, and a real threat to freedom, liberty, and individual prosperity throughout the world.

American political leaders have traditionally maintained that foreign policy should be motivated not merely by considerations of interests and power but also by moral principles. In the words of political theorists, "The concept of national interests has been perhaps the most pervasive and central idea in the literature on foreign policy, and it is of particular importance to us since it serves as the conduit by which elite interests are translated into national objectives." In fact, in the 1996 presidential campaigns, Jim Lehrer tried in vain to get the candidates to focus on foreign-policy questions, and they kept veering back to national passions. Yet, nationalism is growing while politics are turning inward. David R. Gergen states that three decades ago, 65 percent of a president's time was devoted to foreign affairs, and the rest to domestic affairs. He states that the ratio is now reversed and will be for a long time.

American nationalism is strong through the mass media since commentators have criticized television, radio, newspapers, and magazines for placing foreign-policy decisions under too much observation. Also, for distorting the news by presenting emotional dramatic depictions that do not put events in proper historical context, for setting the foreign policy agenda, rushing governmental leaders to imprudent and improper actions. Others say government controls the media and uses it to manipulate public opinion to support the ruling elite's foreign policies. The media does not fairly portray American foreign policy and prevents the true will and wisdom of the people from being exercised. In the post-cold war period, the concern is that the media no longer gives adequate coverage to foreign affairs and thereby bears a major responsibility for Americans' lack of knowledge about and interests in international relations.

There is four core goals that go best at defining the United States' national interests: power, peace, prosperity, and ideological principles. Power is the key requirement for the most basic goal of foreign policy, self-defense and the preservation of national independence and territory. It is also essential for deterring aggression and influencing other states on a range of issues. The United States principal policies for achieving power-based foreign policy strategies are largely coercive ones. Most important is maintaining a strong defense and a credible deterrence. Alliances for defense and deterrence strategies have been used for most of American history during wartime. Military assistance to a pro-American government or rebel group is a common procedure. Military interventions to overthrow governments considered hostile to U.S. interests are numerous.

The Unites States emphasizes both the possibility and the value of reducing the chances of war and of achieving common interests sufficiently for the international system to be one of world order. A rational way to reduce risks and make gains that even the most powerful state could not achieve solely on its own is a pursued policy for peace. U.S. leaders stress the importance of creating international institutions as the basis for sustained cooperation. U.S. institutions provide the structure and the commitments to facilitate the fulfillment of commitments to collective action and coordination.

United States' foreign policies may be based on the pursuit of prosperity, or the overall interests of national economics. In some instances, gains for the American economy come from policies that help provide reliable and low-cost imports, growing markets for American exports, profitable foreign investments, or other international economic opportunities. U.S. foreign policy is largely economic toward some countries. In fact, it makes efforts to strengthen global capitalism as the structure of the international economy. Economic prosperity is pursued and endorsed by the United States through the foundation of ideological principles, discussed in the next section of my essay.

UNITED STATES IDEOLOGY:

"Many observers of American life -- from the early nineteenth to the twentieth century -- have remarked the America is perceived as having a special character that is unique in the world, drawing people to its shores for more than 200 years. If any word were to sum up this special quality, it would have to be equality."

-Charles Levy, 1983

An ideology is a system of beliefs that explains and justifies a preferred sociopolitical order and that may offer a strategy for attainment of it. In this belief, American idealists have seen domestic values as the sole basis for foreign policy, and foreign policy as subservient to domestic policy and domestic values. From the late twentieth century to the twenty-first century, America emerged as the undisputed leader of the world. Since then our ideas are transcendent around the globe. Ideas in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 are accepted in most countries today. Jefferson's ideas of American ideology are making a serious comeback around the world.

American ideology and culture has taken on many different forms across centuries. Elements such as individualism, nationalism, a belief of inalienable rights of the individual, individual ability, equality, a positive economic mentality, pluralism, and a "melting pot" community, all help to shape American ideology into a clear form of action. The contexts of these beliefs are both historical and ideological. One of the major influences that an American ideology has had, is the American dream. The American dream states that anyone who works hard is able to build a fortune from very meager beginnings, in both wealth and status. This special aspect of American culture has motivated immigrants across time and territories to seek their fortune in the land of opportunity.

Moral idealism to universalize values and moral principles, is a goal of American foreign policy. Humanitarian ideals, which America has traditionally espoused and desired, are rooted in this country's experiences of history. The foundation of the American republic serves as a principle for which free enterprise, individualism, personal freedom, personal achievement, and representative and limited government, two party democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are all fundamental values to this country. In the United States there is a strong and frequently publicly announced commitment to the universalistic principles of equal rights for all, tolerance and nondiscrimination, and government by the consent of every citizen. On the other hand, there is the familiar and unmistakable evidence of racism and sexism in the laws of the founding period. This deep national problem called "the American dilemma" underlies many of the major tensions and conflicts that have appeared throughout American history.

The special nature of the United States comes from American exceptionalism. This is the idea that the United States has a special character in the world because of its distinct position and condition. While almost all nations are diverse in one way or another, the U.S. is often regarded as an exception to typical working class political organization. American exceptionalism is the ideological aspect of Americanism, which contends that there are specific ideas that form the basis of our actions, like individualism and individual achievement, equality of opportunity, hard work, inalienable rights, and so on. It also contends for the claim that America is both unlike the Old World and also superior because of the unlikeness.

The United States was founded on certain democratic principles that have defined American's as a people, but these principles have not applied to everyone. While the United States may be one of the most democratic and equal places on Earth, certain segments of the population do not share its democratic freedom. Minorities are often suppressed and discriminated against despite the great conditions the country offers in political theory. Ideally the U.S. is a system of government that allows all people to participate and be equal with one another. Here, democracy represents the equalization of conditions and uniformity of conditions. In fact, when visiting the United States, Tocqueville observed that there were no distinctions among people or classes in the sense that legal differences in class, caste, and status were abolished.

The allowance of free mobility, makes individuals socially equal and no hereditary difference of conditions exist (once again, in theory). All occupations, professions, and titles are accessible to anyone and the educational system seeks to motivate students to pursue a college education. In the United States concepts like equality, the creation of wealth for all, and political liberty are all taught in the public school system. School texts must usually endorse the main themes of our Constitution and capitalist traditions, where our separation of powers checks and balances and political competitions are expressed. From an early age children are socialized into accepting the values of democracy and the governments imposing of it. In fact, in 1983 the State of Florida made a mandatory high school class, which was, entitled "Americanism vs. Communism." Florida legislators had even spelled out the appropriate content of the course, saying: "The course shall lay particular emphasis upon the dangers of communism, the ways to fight communism, the evils of communism, the fallacies of communism and the false doctrines of communism." Here, no teacher or textual material assigned to this course could present communism as preferable to the free-enterprise-competitive economy indigenous to the United States.

American leaders, from beginning to present, have generally prescribed democratic governance worldwide and universal respect for human rights. They have also supported a diplomacy of international law, arms control, and disarmament. Ideals are perceived as creating a safer world, which would enhance the security and well being of the United States and other nations. American ideology expresses that the world is rich with opportunity, so American corporations are rushing out to compete in the global economy. The main elements of American ideology are sharply opposed to the corresponding ideology of the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union, when yet dominated by Stalin's version of Communism.

In modern times, it is believed that a world of democracy engenders an international environment most conductive to U.S. political, economic, and cultural interests. Moreover, George Bush advocated America's continued support of the goal of promoting and consolidating democracy in Eastern Europe and worldwide in his administration. Nevertheless, moral idealism continues to be among the goals of American foreign policy after the United States had achieved great power and superpower status. In conclusion, the goal of promoting moral idealism may is a manifestation of the American national character.

Elements of American Ideology:

Some Dimensions of Contrast/The Three Core Elements	Capitalism and associated beliefs and values: "free enterprise"	Constitution and associated beliefs and values: "the legacy of the Founders"	Christianity and associated  beliefs and values: "our Judaeo-Christian heritage"
Order of Historical Emergence, Crystallization	third (later 19th century)	second (late 18th century)	First (dates from early 17th century)
Arguable Order of Present Priority, (e.g, that which prevails in case of tensions  with other elements)	First	Second	Third
Central Institution, Scene of Operation	Business enterprise, esp. the corporation, in marketplace	governmental units, in various political arenas	Churches, synagogues, largely residual locations
Chief Functional Sphere Today	economic life	political life	Social and especially family life
Purposes, Promised Benefits	economic Well-Being, more and more consumption	liberty and security of  this life	Ultimate meanings, peace  of mind, possible salvation for afterlife
Controls Used by Central Institution	Economic	coercive	Symbolic
Appropriate Spheres of Loyalties and Values	self and property (economic self-interest)	country, compatriots, (patriotism, national interest)	family and mankind and God (originally pacifistic world brotherhood, but also an other-worldly piety)
Norms	Competitions among firms, equality before the market if inequality of results, as described Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations	Competition Among Candidates and Political Programs, Equalities of Political Rights and Before the Law	Competition among Rival Sects/ Individuals Equal in Eyes of God