citizens and government then began to pay attention to the expanding and profitable resources in other parts of the world. This way of thinking is an example of imperialism, or the expansion of a country’s power, which the United States had already been practicing on its own land. The United States government frequently took resources and laid claim to land belonging to the Native Americans, for example. This new wave of imperialism was different in that the United States was now increasingly interested in potential profits in other parts of the world, not just in its immediate area. The United States gained an interest in places such as Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba among others.
A recent well known instance of foreign policy in the modern day is the way in which the United States government handled the events in Syria.
While in the 1890’s citizens of the United States would have had little to no qualms about interfering in the country’s affairs, the American public today is more reluctant to jump right in. For example, when “U.S. President Barack Obama tried to drum up momentum for airstrikes in Syria to punish and deter the use of chemical weapons, he failed to gain much of a following” …show more content…
(Gao).
There are some significant similarities between the events that have occurred in Syria and the Cuban revolt of the 1890’s. For example, in both instances civilians were victims of their own governments. In Cuba civilians were gathered into unsanitary, barbed-wire camps where many died. In Syria the civilians were subject to chemical warfare which United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said was “…the most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since Saddam Hussein used them in Halabja in 1988, and the worst use of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century” (Levs and Yan).
The United States is often criticized for trying to police the world. One of the reasons, both now and in the 1890’s, that the United States government often interferes in foreign affairs is that many Americans believe it is their duty to ‘liberate’ people of those countries. The Americans empathized with the Cubans in their struggle for revolution and today they wish to help the victims in Syria. While it is important that the government uses its power and influence to enforce and protect human rights, it is not necessary to go to full out war. This is something that the government did in the 1890’s but of which it is more cautious today.
During the time of the Cuban revolt, the majority of American people were in favor of the war, due in part to the sensationalist reporting or “yellow journalism” of the time. Now it seems the public is far more cautious of interfering with foreign affairs. Even the governments are taking a step back as exemplified when “Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron pushed for intervention, public representatives in Congress and Parliament held them back” (Gao).
Relating to Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was able to negotiate an agreement between Syria and the United States which made it so that the Syrian government would hand in its stash of chemical weapons and the United States wouldn’t attack.
Though this is a favorable situation, President Barack Obama has been receiving criticism for agreeing to the deal and working with the Russian government. Russia is largely viewed in a negative way by the American public for reasons such as its government granting asylum to Edward Snowden, an exiled ex-CIA employee who exposed classified information about the United States’ surveillance systems, and for recently establishing anti-gay laws (Gao). James Paul, the former executive director of Global Policy Forum (GPF) said "Today, the U.S. has less leverage, less respect and less flexibility than it once had…But we must see the Syria outcome not as a U.S. failure, but rather as a kind of success, in that the Obama administration recognized its limits and was ready to change course rather than head into a very risky option of war"
(Gao).
At times in its history, America has been hasty in relation to wars with other countries. However in modern day, the vast majority of citizens are against starting them. Though sympathy makes people want to help those who are suffering, both citizens and governments are realizing that rather than use brute force, it is much more efficient and safe to approach the situations diplomatically and working in cooperation with other countries towards a solution. Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), said “…in a world in which there are multiple centres of power, those centres of power can address global challenges only through multilateral cooperation. As a consequence, you can expect more of it” (Gao). What Kupchan stated is true. War should be the last option on the table and it is essential that the American government be able to put aside its differences with other countries and cooperate in order to have a more peaceful world.
Works Cited
ProQuest Staff. "Topic Overview: U.S. Foreign Policy." ProQuest LLC. 2012: n.pag. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 31 Oct 2013.
Gao, George. "Syria: Diplomacy Helps Shuffle Global Order." Global Information Network. 19 Sep 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 31 Oct 2013.
Levs, Josh, and Holly Yan. " 'War Crime ': U.N. Finds Sarin Used in Syria Chemical Weapons Attack." CNN. Cable News Network, 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.