United States Foreign Policy Analysis

From pages 350 to 381 in The Politics of Power the topic of foreign policy is discussed. Foreign policy, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is “the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states (“Foreign policy Definition”).” When it comes to making the United States’ foreign policy, the executive branch has the most control. The Politics of Power agrees with this point and backs it up by explaining exactly how the United States’ foreign policy is made on pages 352 and 353. Basically, the president is the heart of the foreign policy process, but occasionally he requires the aid of his advisors, such as the National Security Council, national security adviser, and the National Intelligence Council (Katznelson, Kesselman,
and Draper 352). Notably, his advisors are also part of the executive branch. Other executive members, such as the secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, also help to add their opinions and advice (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 352). However, the executive branch is not the only part of the Unites States’ government responsible for the making of its foreign policy seeing as congress as well as public and private actors also play a role. Congress’ main roles in the making and forcing of foreign policy are its abilities to pass legislation, create funds, and summon military and civilian leaders to testify (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 353). In addition to Congress, the private interests of certain public and private actors, such as transnational corporations and large defense contractors, affect foreign policy because they are affected by foreign policy, in return (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 353). The best explanation for their power is the mobilization of bias considering that what is good for business is what is good for the country and what is good for business in this case is outsourcing.
With the making of foreign policy in mind, the book declares that the main two components of the United States foreign policy are the military and the economy (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 350). I must agree with this statement. However, the economy deals with such a vast amount of different and specialized interactions between countries. As a result, more specified subtopics are in order, such as globalization and unilateralism. That is why I believe that the three main points discussed in this chapter about foreign policy are globalization, unilateralism, and the military.
The Politics of Power defines globalization as “the situation in which there are extensive flows of commodities, capital, culture, and people across national boundaries (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper G-4).” Its occurrence is likely the result of advances in communication and transportation that has decreased the cost and increased the speed of travel (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 361).
Naturally, there are those who argue against the presence of globalization in the United States. To those people, The Politics of Power illustrated several dramatic points by proving that direct foreign investment in capitalist countries increased at triple the rate of international trade and that the United States’ exports only make up ten percent of its GDP (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 361). The Congressional Research Service composed by Jackson proved that foreign investment in the United States is still increasing. Despite the decreasing rates during 2000, it has picked up and continuously increased from 2008 proving that there is still foreign investment in the United States (Jackson). Although the real GDP, the measure of outputs, rose 2.5 percent during 2010, the United States’ exports still makes well below fifty percent of its GDP (Mataloni and Hodge). This helps to prove that globalization is occurring in the United States because it is receiving a minimal amount of its GDP through exports, therefore it must be making up for it by importing. Both of these credible
statistics prove that the United States is still involved with globalization and therefore it is still a valid point.
Perhaps the main way globalization occurs in our country is through transnational corporations. Transnational corporations are businesses with noteworthy foreign involvement, mainly in the manufacturing of their products (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper G-8). Most of these businesses produce a substantial amount of revenue by having overseas subsidiaries (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 362). For example, Ford has manufactured and sold their products in an array of foreign countries including Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Australia, Holland, South Africa and Japan (McLellan). However, Ford also manufactures and sells their products in the United States as well (“List of Ford Factories”). By doing this, Ford is able to produce the parts for the cars at a cheaper price in foreign countries and then assemble them in the United States. This not only strengthens our economy by producing lower sales costs for cars and by providing jobs for the lower and middle class workers, but it also strengthens other countries’ economies by providing them with jobs as well. Ford is supporting globally integrated markets and therefore proving to be a valid example of globalization.
The political impact of globalization can be quite detrimental. For instance, our interconnected world causes our physical boarders to weaken, making them extremely difficult to protect. Naturally this argument is valid based on a recent news break. Both Fox and CNN are buzzing about the news of WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is a website run by terrorist Julian Assange that leaks stolen secret government information which threatens the United States’ security (McFarland). This leak demonstrates how our advanced technology has led to the difficulty of protecting our borders. As part of Obama’s foreign policy, he is currently in the process of shutting down this website in order to prevent overseas terrorists from having the bright idea of attacking the United States. In addition to weakening countries’ boarders, globalization also affects politics by affecting the economy. The global market that results from globalization interferes with countries trying to have their own economy (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 361). The Politics of Power claims that there are two results that come from this situation; the best way and the worst way (361). The best way deals with accepting and adjusting to globalization all the while trying to fit in to the other countries’ economies and the worst way deals with the complete opposite (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 361). The worst result that could come from this situation is isolating yourself and ignoring the globally interconnected market around you, all the while witnessing your economy being dragged behind all of the others (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 361). The United States is trying to become the best result by interconnecting in the market through trade. A prime example of this is the Ford Company that was previously discussed in this essay. Not only does it help to kick start other countries’ economies but ours as well.
Also expected from Globalization is the possibility for civilizations to clash against one another. The Politics of Power points out the diversity within the world and how it has led to clashes in the past such as religion wars (364). With a concept like this in mind it may seem that globalization is not the best method used by countries because it will promote disputes about their differences. However, this is not entirely valid. Globalization is the results of countries wanting to work together in order to collectively solve a problem, such as global warming. When the countries are working together, they are usually able to set aside their differences in order to produce a solution that serves the common good of mankind. For instance, the United States government is currently planning on building an Islamic center on top of ground zero to promote ties with Islam despite the terrorist attack (Goldman and Tapper). Naturally, controversy exists about the subject but so far nothing drastic has been reported (Goldman and Tapper).
However, the economy is not just affected by globalization but by unilateralism as well. Unilateral refers to “the pattern in which a state acts alone within the international sphere rather than consulting or acting with other states (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper G-8).” The Politics of Power provides several examples of unilateralism but perhaps the most noteworthy is Bush’s political reign. For instance, he opposed the Kyoto Protocol which intended to cut back on global warming and was already signed by the majority of other countries (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 369). He also opposed the International Criminal Court concept, an idea that was also supported by allies and other countries (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 369). However, this no longer applies to our society as severely as it once did. Case in point, Obama has recently shown support towards the collective stopping and prevention of the global warming crisis by appointing particular envoys for climate change in Southwest Asia, Sudan, Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (“Foreign Policy”). This demonstrates how the United States government is concerned with what other countries believe and it shows that the United States can be a team player. Bearing in mind that globalization has been proven, unilateralism cannot possibly exist seeing as the other countries’ views are taken into consideration when the United States considers its foreign policy regarding trade and other worldly factors.
Nevertheless, the aspects of unilateralism are aggressive assertion of U.S. power and the expansion of the government’s internal security apparatus. The United States’ aggressive assertion has derived from the tension within its foreign policy between its support of democracy and its attempt to control other countries (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 361). These accusations increased during Bush’s administration because of the Bush Doctrine. This doctrine gave supreme power of the military to the president if he believed that an enemy was planning to attack (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper G-1). This ties into the War in Iraq considering that Bush believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction aimed at the United States. As a result, he sent our troops into battle. It was not until later did the United States realize that Iraq contained no weapons of mass destruction (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 370). This mistake has led many people to believe that the United States’ true main goal was to conquer and then control Iraq. To dispel such harsh accusations, Obama has proposed a plan to end the war in Iraq (“Foreign Policy”). By taking our troops out of the war zone, it will eliminate all claims that the United States is an aggressive assertion country because it will allow Iraq’s citizens to take on more responsibility and run their own democracy. As well as supposedly being aggressively assertive, the United States has also expanded its government on the issue of internal security apparatuses. For instance, the “unlawful combatants” that occurred during Bush’s term shakes the very essence of our moral fibers. It was an order that addressed the treatment of certain prisoners. It violated the Geneva convention by striping prisoners of their and protections, as well as appointed the government with the power of being able to hold unlawful combatants indefinitely (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 371). This led to horrible misconduct in the prison where the guards through it was appropriate to humiliate and abuse the prisoners (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 371). However, the United States is slowly decreasing its government involvement of such issues, thus proving that this argument is no longer valid because of Obama’s foreign policy. He has closed the Guantanamo Bay prison, stopped the spread of torture throughout the United States, and called for a review on our detention and interrogation policy (“Foreign Policy”).
The final main point is the military. The military is a main component of the United Sate’s foreign policy because it enforces the rules and laws made. However, it is not limited to these actions. The military also exists to ensure the protection of the United States. This was best exemplified during the Cold War by the containment policy. The containment policy was an economic, diplomatic, and military strategy that was intended to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper G-2). The United States has progressed greatly from the period of the Cold War but still, treaties are being written with Russia over the basis of arms reduction (“Foreign Policy”). Unfortunately, this does not mean that all is safe in the world. The United States no longer has to just worry about Russia, but other countries as well. Britain, China, Pakistan, North Korea, India, and Israel are all thought to possess nuclear weapons due to nuclear proliferation (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 365). Enemies of the United States can just as easily come into contact and then possess nuclear weapons. Even more threatening than that is the increase in types of bombs made as well as the entire plethora of other weapons that could be used to destroy a country. Examples include, but are not limited to, radioactive materials and “dirty bombs (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 365).” This would be horrendous for our safety and therefore it should be one of the military’s top priorities to see to it that this never happens. Obama is currently trying to address this issue by announcing a strategy that will address the nuclear threat and offer solutions (“Foreign Policy”). Therefore, nuclear weapons are still a concern yet it will dwindle over the next couple of years once Obama’s plan is approved and passed throughout the government as well as the other countries.
The Politics of Power then argues that the United States military’s goal is“full spectrum dominance” as of 2000 (365). This “full spectrum dominance” refers to the possibility of global superiority of the United States’ military in land, sea, space, air, and electromagnetic spectrums (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 365). According to The Politic of Power, the military receives six hundred billion dollars a year in order to make this dream a reality (365). With that kind of money, just about anything is possible. Even George Easterbrook has come up with the conclusion that the United States’ military is trying to become a “full spectrum dominance.” He has analyzed the pattern of the United States’ foreign military involvement and has come up with the conclusion that the United States’ military is not strictly concerned with defense, but global power (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 366). He continues to elaborate by claiming that the United States’ military has strategically been placed in the main foreign countries in order to “project power (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 366).” This pattern involves the United States’ Revolution in Military Affairs. This occurred after the end of the Cold War when the United States’ military was trying to remain on top by applying information technology, such as unmanned precision-guided weapons, to the military (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 366). The military is heavily armed and severely dangerous which makes it quite the power hog when it comes to foreign affairs. This is best proven through the countless types of weapons used today in the military, such as the Predator drone aircraft (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 366). Although Obama is pulling the United States’ military out of Iraq, these weapons still remain in their possession. Now they are being planned to be used in Afghanistan, a prime example of how the United States is expanding its power (“Foreign Policy”).
The United States’ military’s responsibilities does not end with defense and power seeing as it has also incorporated nation building. Nation building is the term used to describe the situation where one or more countries tries to aid another that is weak in its development (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper G-5). Generally the United States would become involved in such an area of foreign aid in order to better promote its image. The war in Iraq is a prime example of this. Although it has received its share of negative publicity concerning its reason for commencing, it has also provided the United States with the responsibility of helping to develop such a weak country by providing opportunities to build roads and schools, train the police and teachers through the United States’ military, and to provide economic aid (Katznelson, Kesselman, and Draper 366). Despite the United States’ military eye now set upon Afghanistan instead of Iraq, it is a possibility that the same nation building that occurred in Iraq will now spread to Afghanistan (“Foreign Policy”). In addition to helping Iraq and potentially Afghanistan, the United States will now be helping to improve economic relations in China which not only improves our economy, but theirs as well (“Foreign Policy”). This is what most people consider to be a win-win situation.
However, some argue that the military is also responsible for the protection of worldwide democracy as well as human rights.
The Politics of Power best explains this occurrence by stating how humanitarian concerns and the notion that the United States is a force of good in the globe have inspired its presence (367). This concept is still valid to this day when taking the 2010 earthquake that hit Port-au-Prince, Haiti into consideration. The United States provided a vast amount aid towards Haiti in its time of need. In order to help get it back on its feet, the United States donated a wide range of items such as food, water, and other relief supplies (“Foreign Policy”). In fact, most of websites that deal with the United States’ citizens donating is still in effect to this day, despite the earthquake occurring in January (“Rebuilding Strength”). As a result of this aid, the United States receives the benefit of receiving good global publicity about the charitableness of the United States. Not only does this method help to improve foreign ties with the country the United States is aiding, but also with other countries that might be allies of the country receiving the aid. As thoroughly explained in this essay, the United States’ military is not only focused on the control and power it brings upon other countries, but their development and natural well being as
well.
Foreign policy is a very important part of our government. We have come a tremendously long way to the point where we are at today. The once lonely period of isolation is over and now the United States is considered to be a super power with the entire world looking at us for solutions and answers to the questions of what should happen next. Therefore, our involvement and actions not only affects us, but the entire world. Naturally the gravity of the matter can not be simply resolved with a worldwide bake sell therefore more influential forms of foreign policy are needed. However, in order to construct the perfect foreign policy, the making of it and its most influential aspects must be known beforehand. That is why I believe that the three main points discussed in this chapter about foreign policy are globalization, unilateralism, and the military.

Work Cited
"Foreign Policy." The White House. USA.gov. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy>.
"Foreign Policy Definition." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign policy>.
Goldman, Russell, and Jake Tapper. "Islamic Center 'Ground Zero Mosque ' Controversy Heats Up - ABC News." ABCNews.com - ABCNews.com: Breaking News, Politics, World News, Good Morning America, Exclusive Interviews - ABC News. ABC News, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/islamic-center-ground-mosque-controversy-heats/story?id=11435030>.
Jackson, James K. "Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An Economic Analysis." (2010): 1-9. Congressional Research Service. 28 July 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21857.pdf>.
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Governement. 6th ed. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education, 2006. Print.
"List of Ford Factories." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_factories>.
Mataloni, Lisa S., and Andrew Hodge. "News Release: Gross Domestic Product." U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - Bea.gov Home Page. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm>.
McFarland, Kt. "Yes, WikiLeaks Is a Terrorist Organization and the Time to Act Is NOW."FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. FoxNews, 30 Nov. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/30/yes-wikileaks-terrorist-organization-time-act/>.
McLellan, Sharon. "Ford Overseas." The Automotive Chronicles. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.mclellansautomotive.com/newsletter/articles/2005/nov/01/index.php>.
"Rebuilding for Strength to Survive and Trive." Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org/>.