Close To My Own Nation example essay topic

The United States must realize that the economies of Latin American nations will play an important part in the future of our own economy, and that it must begin to lead, invest, and aid not just Mexico, but countries such as Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Columbia into the twenty first century. The mainstay in American foreign policy has always been to promote and instill democracy. However, in order to do this in a foreign nation, America must be able to establish a viable economic relationship and system within the desired nations. We should not expect or want a nation to switch from a total authoritarian government to a market economy; doing so would be a disaster. The former Soviet Union is a notable example of this philosophy. Instead, the United States has to be willing to allow developing nations to invest its market before we invest in theirs.

In return, a viable export and import system will be gradually but successfully established. However, it is essential for the economy of the developing nation to be monitored and run by government of that nation. The United States should only be there for advising purposes. When a reasonable system has finally been achieved, then more American, laissez-faire type of economic network will be allowed to grow. The greatest challenge the United States faces is implementing a foreign policy that is consistent throughout the Middle East.

Islamic nations are not likely to be responsive to ideas such as human rights, and democracy. These nations will never be responsive to western ideas when the United States continues to impose sanctions against them. America is lucky to have an ally in Saudi Arabia and Israel. This allows them to implement many of these foreign policy agendas against the other Middle Eastern countries, without having to face serious economic consequences in the oil and gas industry. As the United States increases its strength as a world power, other countries believe that the U.S. has gone too far in its task for world peace and justice. The United States has begun to infringe on these countries, forcing its beliefs and ideals upon not only their government, but their public as well.

Benjamin Schwarz said, The object of foreign policy cannot be to transform societies or change men's hearts. Defending Americas security by containing, deterring, and fighting a hostile country is one thing; attempting that defense by fundamentally influencing internal change is quite another (To nelson 1991,101). Thus, the question arises, Is the United States becoming the bully of the free world? a charge made by Gary Wills. (Drinan 1987, 1) It was during the forty years of the Cold War that the United States became accustomed to insisting on its own way in foreign affairs. (Drinan 1987, 4) The United States helped to remove indigenous leaders who did not conform to Americas dictates. The new strategy for Americas role as a Superpower in the post-Cold War world must focus rigorously not on wishful thinking or fanciful ideologies but rather on the brutal economic, political, and environmental realities of the post-Cold War world as well as on the harsh realities of Americas genuine economic and political status in that world.

It is in the American national self-interest that global economic stability and international security to be maintained. However, it is impossible for the United States to achieve this goal on its own. The solution lies not in a new bipolar system but rather in a new consensus on international diplomacy of multilateral and bilateral alliances among a broad spectrum of our international partners Europe, Russia, China, Japan countries that have some influence in the region. A sphere of influence is a cushion to soften the blow if the enemy is attacking. Nuclear war would destroy everyone nothing a sphere of influence can alter, but a conventional war; time would still be the main factor. For example, if the Americans attacked Russia and there were no spheres of influence surrounding Russia the Americans could penetrate Russian soil on the same day they attacked.

Now, if the spheres of influence were surrounding Russia the story would be different, the outcome positive for Russians. There are two positions one could take on this problem. Superpowers should or should not establish a sphere of influence in the world. A positive answers justification would be that a sphere of influence protects you from the enemy and protects weaker nations from the threat of a hostile takeover. A negative answer would claim that this influence impairs smaller nations from making their own decisions and removes their freedom. My position on this question is yes.

Smaller nations represent uncertainty, which could spell disaster. Especially those nations that are geographically close to my own nation. With so much uncertainty, so close to my own nation. One would be unintelligent to ignore such a problem. Pursuing its economic interests, the United States has involved itself in many foreign conflicts around the world, making its presence known and showing that it is the only world superpower at present time. That approach is a blueprint for the indefinite prolongation of expensive and risky U.S. military commitments around the globe.

(Carpenter 1992, 87) However, majorities of fifty-five to sixty-five percent of the American public say that events in Western Europe, Asia, Mexico, and even Canada have little or no impact on their lives. (Drinan 1987, 6) It is more evident now in the American public that there is a new sense of isolationism, which has never been absent from Americas thinking (Drinan 1987, 7) just suppressed. A broad consensus among these actors will itself serve as an effective counterweight to the disruptive efforts of the worlds rogue states (e. g., Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. ). Moreover, given that future disruptions of global stability are nearly as likely to arise as part of the unintended consequences of economic, environmental and political instability in the South as from the intended actions of rogue states, the United States and its international partners cannot afford to ignore or insulate themselves from the Third World. The United States along with its other international developed partners has both a responsibility and a need to encourage and facilitate sustainable growth and development in the Third World.