Foreign policy of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a series on the

Politics of the
United States of America

Federal Government[show]

Legislature[show]

Executive[show]

Judiciary[show]

Elections[show]

Political parties[show]

Federalism[show]

Other countries
Atlas

v
t
e

The foreign policy of the United States is the way in which it interacts with foreign nations and
sets standards of interaction for its organizations, corporations and individual citizens of the
United States.
The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, including all the Bureaus and
Offices in the United States Department of State,[1] as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of
the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous
world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." [2] In addition,
theUnited States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals:
"export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware;
measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American
business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; and protection of
American citizens abroad and expatriation."[3] U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid have been the
subject of much debate, praise and criticism, both domestically and abroad.

Contents
[hide]

1Powers of the President and Congress

2Historical overview

o 2.120th century

2.1.1World War I

2.1.2World War II

2.1.3Cold War

o 2.221st century

3Law

4International agreements

o 4.1Economic and general government

o 4.2Freely Associated States

o 4.3Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements

o 4.4Hub and spoke vs multilateral

5Oil

o 5.1Persian Gulf

o 5.2Canada

o 5.3Africa

6Foreign aid

7Military

o 7.1Mutual defense agreements

o 7.2Other allies and multilateral organizations

 o 7.3Unilateral vs. multilateral military actions

o 7.4Aid

o 7.5Missile defense

o 7.6Exporting democracy

7.6.1Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export

democracy

7.6.2Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results

7.6.3Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports

democracy

8Global opinion

9Covert actions

10Human rights

11War on Drugs

12Criticism

13Support

14By country or region

o 14.1United Kingdom

o 14.2Canada

o 14.3Mexico

o 14.4Australia

o 14.5Middle East

o 14.6Japan

o 14.7South Korea

o 14.8China

o 14.9Taiwan

o 14.10ASEAN

14.10.1Indonesia
 14.10.2Malaysia

14.10.3Myanmar

14.10.4Philippines

14.10.5Thailand

14.10.6Vietnam

o 14.11Eastern Europe

o 14.12Kosovo

15See also

o 15.1Constitutional and international law

o 15.2Diplomacy

o 15.3Intelligence

o 15.4Military

o 15.5Policy and doctrine

16References

17Further reading

18External links

Powers of the President and Congress[edit]

The U.S. Constitution gives much of the foreign policy decision-making to the presidency, but the Senate
has a role in ratifying treaties, and the Supreme Court interprets treaties when cases are presented to it.

Main articles: Treaty Clause, War Powers Clause, Appointments Clause, and Foreign Commerce
Clause
Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President of the United
States negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force if ratified by two-thirds
of the Senate. The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces,
and as such has broad authority over the armed forces; however only Congress has authority to
declare war, and the civilian and military budget is written by the Congress. The United States
Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of
state-to-state diplomacy. Both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress also has power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations.[4]

Historical overview[edit]
Main articles: History of U.S. foreign policy and Timeline of United States diplomatic history

The Jay Treaty of 1795 aligned the U.S. more with Britain and less with France, leading to political
polarization at home

The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the
shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and
global hegemony during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century.
[5]
Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from
the realist school to the idealistic orWilsonian school of international relations.[6]
Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address;
these included among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and
cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular
nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any
portion of the foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations. These policies became the
basis of the Federalist Party in the 1790s. But the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored
France in the 1790s, declaring the War of 1812 on Britain. After the 1778 alliance with France,
the U.S. did not sign another permanent treaty until the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Over time,
other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by Presidential
'doctrines', named for them. Initially these were uncommon events, but since WWII, these have
been made by most presidents.
Jeffersonians vigoprously opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against
American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force
projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801.[7]
Despite two wars with European Powersthe War of 1812 and the 1898 SpanishAmerican War
American foreign policy was peaceful and marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade
during the 19th century. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled the nation's geographical area;
Spain ceded the territory of Florida in 1819; annexation brought in the independent Texas
Republic in 1845; a war with Mexico in 1848 added California, Arizona and New Mexico. The
U.S. bought Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, and it annexed the independent Republic
of Hawaii in 1898. Victory over Spain in 1898 brought the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, as well
as oversight of Cuba. The short experiment in imperialism ended by 1908, as the U.S. turned its
attention to the Panama Canal and the stabilization of regions to its south, including Mexico.
20th century[edit]
World War I[edit]
The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which the United States, along with allied
powers, defeated its enemies and increased its international reputation.
PresidentWilson's Fourteen Points was developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of
spreading democracy and fighting militarism so as to end any wars. It became the basis of the
German Armistice (really a surrender) and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The
resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed
insufficient conformity with these points and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its
adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined theLeague of Nations, which
was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States followed an
independent course, and succeeded in a program of naval disarmament, and refunding the
German economy. Operating outside the League it became a dominant player in diplomatic
affairs. New York became the financial capital of the world, [8] but the Wall Street Crash of
1929 hurled the Western industrialized world into the Great Depression. American trade policy
relied on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the
Democrats, but in any case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s.
World War II[edit]
Main article: Diplomatic history of World War II United States

Allies of World War II at the Yalta Conference: Winston Churchill,Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.

The United States adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but then
President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved toward strong support of the Allies in their wars against
Germany and Japan. As a result of intense internal debate, the national policy was one of
becoming the Arsenal of Democracy, that is financing and equipping the Allied armies without
sending American combat soldiers. Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which
ought to be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech
and religion, as well as freedom from want and fear. Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-
war world among potential allies at the Atlantic Conference; specific points were included to
correct earlier failures, which became a step toward the United Nations. American policy was to
threaten Japan, to force it out of China, and to prevent its attacking the Soviet Union. However,
Japan reacted by an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at
war with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of the loans given to allies in World War I, the United
States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000. Working closely with Winston
Churchill of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his forces into the
Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally into Europe
starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans. The American economy roared
forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes, ships, tanks,
munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. Much of the American war effort went to strategic
bombers, which flattened the cities of Japan and Germany.
Cold War[edit]
Main article: History of the Cold War

Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong meets with U.S. President Richard Nixon, 1972

After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant non-colonial economic power with broad
influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the Marshall Plan and the Truman
Doctrine. Almost immediately however, the world witnessed division into broad two camps during
the Cold War; one side was led by the U.S., and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation
also led to the establishment of theNon-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the
end of the 20th century, and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the
two superpowers. A policy of containment was adopted to limit Soviet expansion, and a series of
proxy wars were fought with mixed results. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate
nations, and the Cold War formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic
recognition to the Russian Federation and other former Soviet states.
In domestic politics, foreign policy is not usually a central issue. In 1945-1970 the Democratic
Party took a strong anti-Communist line and supported wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then the
party split with a strong dovish element (typified by 1972 presidential candidate George
McGovern). Many "hawks" joined the Neoconservative movement and started supporting the
Republicansespecially Reaganbased on foreign policy.[9] Meanwhile, down to 1952 the
Republican Party was split between an isolationist wing, based in the Midwest and led by
Senator Robert A. Taft, and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by Dwight D.
Eisenhower. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely on foreign policy grounds.
Since then the Republicans have been characterized by a hawkish and intense American
nationalism, and strong opposition to Communism, and strong support for Israel. [10]
21st century[edit]
In the 21st century, U.S. influence remains strong but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of
economic output compared to rising nations such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and the newly
consolidated European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear
proliferation, and the specter of nuclear terrorism. Foreign policy analysts Hachigian and Sutphen
in their book The Next American Century suggest all six powers have similar vested interests in
stability and terrorism prevention and trade; if they can find common ground, then the next
decades may be marked by peaceful growth and prosperity.[11]

Law[edit]
Main articles: Treaty and Treaty Clause
In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:

Executive agreements

Congressional-executive agreements are made by

the president and Congress. A majority of both houses
makes it binding much like regular legislation after it is
signed by the president. The constitution does not expressly
state that these agreements are allowed, and constitutional
scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they are
unconstitutional.[12]

Sole executive agreements are made by

the president alone.

Treaties are formal written agreements specified by the Treaty

Clause of the Constitution. The president makes a treaty with
 foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be ratified by
a two-thirds vote in the Senate. For example,
President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World
War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was
rejected by the U.S. Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently
made separate agreements with different nations. While most
international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty,
the U.S. sense of the term is more restricted. In Missouri v.
Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make
treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the
other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence
the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas
which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the
states.
International law in most nations considers all three of the above agreements as treaties. In most
nations, treaty laws supersede domestic law. So if there is a conflict between a treaty obligation
and a domestic law, then the treaty usually prevails.[citation needed]
In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as
distinct. Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a
result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterwards. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty
obligation even if this is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S.
court rulings confirmed this understanding, including the 1900 Supreme Court decision
in Paquete Habana, a late 1950s decision in Reid v. Covert, and a lower court ruling in 1986
in Garcia-Mir v. Meese. Further, the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to
rule a treaty as void by declaring it "unconstitutional", although as of 2011, it has never exercised
this power.[citation needed]
The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties represents established law. Generally when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding.
However, because of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every
treaty that says, in effect, that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to
be in violation of the Constitution, then the U.S. legally can't abide by the treaty since the U.S.
signature would be ultra vires.

International agreements[edit]
The United States has ratified and participates in many other multilateral treaties, including arms
control treaties (especially with the Soviet Union), human rights treaties,environmental protocols,
and free trade agreements.
Further information: List of United States treaties
Economic and general government[edit]
The United States is a founding member of the United Nations and most of its specialized
agencies, notably including the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund. The U.S.
has at times has withheld payment of dues due to disagreements with the UN.
The United States is also member of:

Organization of American States

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OECD)

NAFTA, the regional trade bloc with Canada and Mexico

World Trade Organization

 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

Group of Eight (G8)

World Customs Organization

Freely Associated States[edit]
After it captured the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986 (1994 for Palau). TheNorthern
Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory (part of the United States), while Federated States of
Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau became independent countries. Each has signed
a Compact of Free Association that gives the United States exclusive military access in return for
U.S. defense protection and conduct of military foreign affairs (except declaration of war) and a
few billion dollars of aid. These agreements also generally allow citizens of these countries to live
and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provide for largely free
trade. The federal government also grants access to services from domestic agencies, including
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Weather Service, the United States
Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission,
and U.S. representation to the International Frequency Registration Board of the International
Telecommunication Union.
Further information: Associated state
Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements[edit]
The United States notably does not participate in various international agreements adhered to by
almost all other industrialized countries, by almost all the countries of the Americas, or by almost
all other countries in the world. With a large population and economy, on a practical level this can
undermine the effect of certain agreements,[13][14] or give other countries a precedent to cite for
non-participation in various agreements.[15]
In some cases the arguments against participation include that the United States should
maximize its sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create a basis for
lawsuits that would treat American citizens unfairly.[16] In other cases, the debate became involved
in domestic political issues, such as gun control, climate change, and thedeath penalty.
Examples include:

Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations covenant (in force

1920-1945, signed but not ratified)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (took effect

in 1976, ratified with substantial reservations)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights (took effect in 1976, signed but not ratified)

American Convention on Human Rights (took effect in 1978)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (took effect in 1981, signed but not ratified)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (took effect in 1990,

signed but not ratified)

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (took effect in

1994)
 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (signed in 1996 but
never ratified and never took effect)

Mine Ban Treaty (took effect in 1999)

International Criminal Court (took effect in 2002)

Kyoto Protocol (in force 2005-2012, signed but not ratified)

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (took effect

in 2006)

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (took

effect in 2008, signed but not ratified)

Convention on Cluster Munitions (took effect in 2010)

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from

Enforced Disappearance (took effect in 2010)

Arms Trade Treaty (took effect in 2014)

Other human rights treaties

Further information: List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States
Hub and spoke vs multilateral[edit]
While America's relationships with Europe have tended to be in terms of multilateral frameworks,
such as NATO, America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a "hub and spoke"
model using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States and
do not collaborate with each other.[17] On May 30, 2009, at theShangri-La Dialogue Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as
they established and grew multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc
arrangements in the area.[18] However, in 2011 Gates said that the United States must serve as
the "indispensable nation," for building multilateral cooperation.[19]

Oil[edit]
Persian Gulf[edit]
Further information: Energy policy of the United States and Petroleum politics

A U.S. soldier stands guard duty near a burning oil well in the Rumaila oil field, Iraq, April 2003

As of 2014, the U.S. currently produces about 66% of the oil that it consumes.[20] While its imports
have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques
and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for
increased energy independence from oil exporting countries such as OPEC.[21] Former U.S.
President George W. Bushidentified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security
concern".[22]
Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf.[23]
[24]
Despite its distance, the Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to
the United States during World War II. Petroleum is of central importance to modern armies, and
the United Statesas the world's leading oil producer at that timesupplied most of the oil for
the Allied armies. Many U.S. strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce
the U.S. oil supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia,
a kingdom with large oil reserves.[25]
The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United
States during the Cold War. Three Cold War United States Presidential doctrinesthe Truman
Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrineplayed roles in the formulation of
the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to
defend its "national interests" in the Persian Gulf region.[26] Carter's successor, President Ronald
Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan
Corollary to the Carter Doctrine", which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to
protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the IranIraq War.
[27]
Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan
Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.[28][29][30][31]
Canada[edit]
Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign
source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil
imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports. [32]
Africa[edit]
In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28.4% of
exports (second in total to the EU at 31.4%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were
petroleum products.[33]

Foreign aid[edit]
Main articles: United States foreign aid and United States Agency for International Development
Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget,
which is $49 billion in all for 2014.[34] Aid is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign
policy. There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development
aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and
multilateral economic contributions (for example, contributions to the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund).[35]
In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor ($23
billion in 2014).[34] The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of
bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid. In addition
many private agencies, churches and philanthropies provide aid.
Although the United States is the largest donor in absolute dollar terms, it is actually ranked 19
out of 27 countries on the Commitment to Development Index. The CDI ranks the 27 richest
donor countries on their policies that affect the developing world. In the aid component the United
States is penalized for low net aid volume as a share of the economy, a large share of tied or
partially tied aid, and a large share of aid given to less poor and relatively undemocratic
governments.
Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting
foreign aid much more than conservatives do.[36]

Military[edit]
As of 2016, the United States is actively conducting military operations against the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Terrorists, including in areas of fighting in the Syrian Civil War and Yemeni Civil War.
The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base holds what the federal government considers unlawful
combatants from these ongoing activities, and has been a controversial issue in foreign relations,
domestic politics, and CubaUnited States relations. Other major U.S. military concerns include
stability in Afghanistan and Iraq after the recent invasions of those countries, and Russian
military activity in Ukraine.
Mutual defense agreements[edit]

A map of allies of the United States

NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions
Major non-NATO allies, plusRepublic of China (Taiwan)
Signatories of Partnership for Peace with NATO

The United States is a founding member of NATO, an alliance of 28 North American and
European nations formed to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold
War. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is
attacked by a foreign power. The United States itself was the first country to invoke the mutual
defense provisions of the alliance, in response to the September 11 attacks.
The United States also has mutual military defense treaties with:[37]

Australia and New Zealand

Japan

South Korea

Philippines

Thailand, with other states formerly in the Southeast Asia Treaty

Organization

Most countries in South America, Central America, and the

Caribbean, through the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal
Assistance
The United States has responsibility for the defense of the three Compact of Free
Association states: Federated States of Micronesia, theMarshall Islands, and Palau.
Other allies and multilateral organizations[edit]

Countries with U.S. military bases (excluding the U.S. Coast Guard).
In 1989, the United States also granted five nations the major non-NATO ally status (MNNA), and
additions by later presidents have brought the list to 28 nations. Each such state has a unique
relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and
alliances.
and lesser agreements with:

Taiwan

Israel

Saudi Arabia
The U.S. participates in various military-related multi-lateral organizations, including:

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

International Atomic Energy Agency

The U.S. also operates hundreds of military bases around the world.
Unilateral vs. multilateral military actions[edit]
The United States has undertaken unilateral and multilateral military operations throughout its
history (see Timeline of United States military operations). In the post-World War II era, the
country has had permanent membership and veto power in the United Nations Security Council,
allowing it to undertake any military action without formal Security Council opposition. With vast
military expenditures, the United States is known as the sole remaining superpower after the
collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. contributes a relatively small number of personnel
for United Nations peacekeeping operations. It sometimes acts though NATO, as with the NATO
intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina,NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and ISAF in Afghanistan,
but often acts unilaterally or in ad-hoc coalitions as with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The United Nations Charter requires that military operations be either for self-defense or
affirmatively approved by the Security Council. Though many of their operations have followed
these rules, the United States and NATO have been accused of committing crimes against
peace in international law, for example in the 1999 Yugoslavia and 2003 Iraq operations.
Aid[edit]
Main articles: United States military aid, United States Foreign Military Financing, and Foreign
Military Sales

U.S. Soldiers unload humanitarian aid for distribution to the town of Rajan Kala, Afghanistan, December
2009

The U.S. provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in
the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5
billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1
billion went to Colombia.[38] Since 9/11, Pakistan has received approximately $11.5 billion in direct
military aid.[39]
As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different
countries.[40]
Estimated U.S. foreign military financing and aid by recipient for 2010:

Recipient Military aid 2010 (USD Billions)

Iraq 6.50

Afghanistan 5.60[41]

Israel 2.75[42]

Egypt 1.75[43]

Pakistan 1.60[44]

Colombia .834[45]

Jordan .300[46]

Palestinian Authority .100[43]

Yemen .070

Missile defense[edit]
Main articles: National missile defense and Strategic Defense Initiative
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on
March 23, 1983[47] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from
attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles,[48] later dubbed "Star Wars".[49] The initiative focused
on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured
destruction (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and
technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missilesystems of today.[50]
In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech
Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-
Based Midcourse Defense system[51] (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan).[52] According
to press reports the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree) [53] to
host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be
built in Poland.[54][55]
Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia's border with NATO if the
United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland
and the Czech Republic.[56][57] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans
deployed the shield in Central Europe.[58] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its
obligations under an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[59]
On August 14, 2008, the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile
defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.[60] "The
fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the
United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will
be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin,
Russia's NATO envoy, said.[51][61]
Exporting democracy[edit]
See also: American democracy promotion in the Middle East and North Africa
In United States history, critics have charged that presidents have used democracy to
justify military intervention abroad.[62][63] Critics have also charged that the U.S. helped local
militaries overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other
instances. Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting
democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the
overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations. [64] Until recently,
scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that
U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only
occasionally positive."[65][66] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[64] and
another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy
in other countries.[67]
Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy[edit]
Professor Paul W. Drake argued that the U.S. first attempted to export democracy in Latin
America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argued that this was contradictory
because international law defines intervention as "dictatorial interference in the affairs of another
state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." The study suggested that efforts to
promote democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and
can not be forcibly imposed. There was disagreement about what constituted democracy; Drake
suggested American leaders sometimes defined democracy in a narrow sense of a nation having
elections; Drake suggested a broader understanding was needed. Further, there was
disagreement about what constituted a "rebellion"; Drake saw a pattern in which the U.S. State
Department disapproved of any type of rebellion, even so-called "revolutions", and in some
instances rebellions against dictatorships.[68] Historian Walter LaFeber stated, "The world's
leading revolutionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of
the status quo in the twentieth century."[69]
Mesquita and Downs evaluated 35 U.S. interventions from 1945 to 2004 and concluded that in
only one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within ten years
following the intervention.[70] Samia Amin Pei argued that nation building in developed countries
usually unravelled four to six years after American intervention ended. Pei, based on study of a
database on worldwide democracies called Polity, agreed with Mesquita and Downs that U.S.
intervention efforts usually don't produce real democracies, and that most cases result in greater
authoritarianism after ten years.[71]
Professor Joshua Muravchik argued U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization
after World War II, but America's failure to encourage democracy in the third world "prove ... that
U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic." [72][73] The
success of democracy in former Axis countries such as Italywere seen as a result of high national
per-capita income, although U.S. protection was seen as a key to stabilization and important for
encouraging the transition to democracy. Steven Krasner agreed that there was a link between
wealth and democracy; when per-capita incomes of $6,000 were achieved in a democracy, there
was little chance of that country ever reverting to an autocracy, according to an analysis of his
research in the Los Angeles Times.[74]
Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results[edit]
Tures examined 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom
House data. A plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy. In 69
instances, the country became less democratic after the intervention. In the remaining 63 cases,
a country became more democratic.[64] However this does not take into account the direction the
country would have gone with no U.S. intervention.
Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy[edit]
Hermann and Kegley found that American military interventions designed to protect or promote
democracy increased freedom in those countries.[67] Peceny argued that the democracies created
after military intervention are still closer to an autocracy than a democracy, quoting Przeworski
"while some democracies are more democratic than others, unless offices are contested, no
regime should be considered democratic."[75] Therefore, Peceny concludes, it is difficult to know
from the Hermann and Kegley study whether U.S. intervention has only produced less repressive
autocratic governments or genuine democracies. [76]
Peceny stated that the United States attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 20th-century
military interventions.[77] Peceny argued that proliberal policies after military intervention had a
positive impact on democracy.[78]

Global opinion[edit]
A global survey done by Pewglobal indicated that at (as of 2014) least 33 surveyed countries
have a positive view (50% or above) of the United States. With the top ten most positive
countries being Philippines (92%), Israel (84%), South Korea (82%), Kenya (80%), El Salvador
(80%), Italy (78%), Ghana (77%), Vietnam (76%), Bangladesh (76%), and Tanzania (75%). While
10 surveyed countries have the most negative view (Below 50%) of the United States. With the
countries being Egypt (10%), Jordan (12%), Pakistan (14%), Turkey (19%), Russia (23%),
Palestinian Territories (30%), Greece (34%), Argentina (36%), Lebanon (41%), Tunisia (42%).
American's own view of the United States was viewed at 84%. [79]

Covert actions[edit]
See also: Reagan Doctrine and Clandestine HUMINT and covert action
Covert United States involvement in regime change
1949 Syrian coup d'tat
1949-1953 Albania
1951-56 Tibet
1953 Iranian coup d'tat
1954 Guatemalan coup d'tat
1956-57 Syria crisis
1960 Congo coup d'tat
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1963 South Vietnamese coup d'tat
1964 Bolivian coup d'tat
1964 Brazilian coup d'tat
1966 Ghana coup d'tat
1971 Bolivian coup d'tat
1973 Chilean coup d'tat
1980 Turkish coup d'tat
 197989 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
198187 Nicaragua, Contras
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
2011 Libyan civil war
2011-present Syria

talk

edit

United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have
been opposed to the United States. In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government,
initiated Operation Ajax against the Prime Minister of IranMohammad Mossadegh who had
attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.[80]
A year later, in Operation PBSUCCESS, the CIA assisted the local military in toppling the
democratically elected left-wing government of Jacobo rbenz in Guatemala and installing the
military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. The United Fruit Companylobbied for rbenz overthrow as
his land reforms jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a
communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long civil war which claimed the lives of
200,000 people.[81]
During the massacre of alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia, the U.S. government provided
assistance to the Indonesian military that helped facilitate the mass killings. [82][83][84][85][86][87] This
included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000
names of suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were
subsequently killed in the massacres.[88][89][90][91][92] In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the
publication of the State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968,
which documents the U.S. role in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the
express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI.[86][93][94]
In 1970, the CIA worked with coup-plotters in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General Ren
Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election
of Salvador Allende. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later. The
CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.[95][96]

Human rights[edit]
See also: List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States and United States and
state-sponsored terrorism
Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign
policy.[97] Congress took the lead in the 1970s.[98] Following the Vietnam War, the feeling that U.S.
foreign policy had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by Senator
Donald M. Fraser (D, MI), leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and
Movements, in criticizing Republican Foreign Policy under the Nixon administration. In the early
1970s, Congress concluded the Vietnam War and passed the War Powers Act. As "part of a
growing assertiveness by Congress about many aspects of Foreign Policy," [99] Human Rights
concerns became a battleground between the Legislative and the Executive branches in the
formulation of foreign policy. David Forsythe points to three specific, early examples of Congress
interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:

1. Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act

of 1977: ensured assistance through international financial
institutions would be limited to countries "other than those
 whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights."[99]

2. Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as

amended in 1984: reads in part, "No assistance may be
provided under this part to the government of any country
which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights."[99]

3. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as

amended in 1978: "No security assistance may be provided
to any country the government of which engages in a
consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights."[99]
These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign
policy towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and South Africa. The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan)
argued that the Cold War required placing regional security in favor of U.S. interests over any
behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the
United States from oppressive regimes.[98] Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel
Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states
practicing mass murder outnumbered those of theSoviet Union.[100] John Henry Coatsworth, a
historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of
repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European
satellites during the period 1960 to 1990.[101][102]
On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing
financial aid to foreign countries.[103] He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays,
[104]
joining other western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.[105]
In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders
of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, both American citizens, shortly after the 1973 Chilean
coup d'tat.[106]

War on Drugs[edit]
Main article: War on Drugs
United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports
of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. This is especially true
in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts date back to at least 1880,
when the U.S. and China completed an agreement that prohibitedthe shipment of opium between
the two countries.
Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the
major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005, [107] the following
countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico,Nigeria,
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are
countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international
counternarcotics agreements during the previous 12 months. Notably absent from the 2005 list
were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China andVietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite
of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production
of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of
Canadian-grown cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully
countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

Criticism[edit]
Main article: Criticism of American foreign policy

Demonstration at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin against the NSAsurveillance program PRISM, June 2013

Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel.
Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that
the U.S. presidents have used democracy to justify military interventionabroad.[62][63] It was also
noted that the U.S. overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in
other instances.Noam Chomsky, a vociferous critic of U.S. foreign policy, argues that "in both
cases the consequences reach to the present" and that Guatemala in particular "remains one of
the world's worst horror chambers."[108] Critics also point to declassified records which indicate
that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited more
than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants
against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.[109][110]
The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human
rights, such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile,[111] Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay,[112] Efran Ros
Montt of Guatemala,[113] Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina,[114] Hissne Habr of Chad[115][116] Yahya
Khan of Pakistan[117] and Suharto of Indonesia.[85][89] Critics have also accused the United States of
supportingOperation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terror
organized by right-wing military dictatorships in theSouthern Cone of South America.[112][118][119]
Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led airstrikes and targeted
killings by drones which have in some cases resulted in collateral damage of civilian populations.
[120][121]

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy
abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall
effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations.[64] Some scholars have
generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to
export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally
positive."[65][66] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[64] and another by
Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other
countries.[67] A 2013 global poll in 68 countries with 66,000 respondents by Win/Gallup found that
the U.S. is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace. [122][123][124]

Support[edit]
President George W. Bush and Slovakia's Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda are greeted by a crowd of
thousands gathered inBratislava's Hviezdoslavovo Square(February 2005).

Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, a response is
that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or
fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests. Friendly
tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South
Korea), while the 'realist' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign
populations with long memories.[125][126]
Many democracies have voluntary military ties with United States. See NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of
Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Mutual Defense
Treaty with South Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those nations with military alliances with the
U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a
false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.[127][128]
Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the
United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups
against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the
explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist
dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government
agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian
leaders.[129]
Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States,
have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[130][131] Media may be biased against the U.S.
regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that The New York
Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights
violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage
of the human rights violations in other nations.[132][133] For example, the bloodiest war in recent
time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which
was almost completely ignored by the media.
Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all the human rights violations in
nations they have supported. He writes that it is generally agreed that Guatemala was the worst
of the US-backed regimes during the Cold War. However, the U.S. cannot credibly be blamed for
all the 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War.[126]The U.S. Intelligence Oversight
Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S.
helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security
services.[134] However, W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler"
of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the
region's worst tendencies."[135]

Bahraini pro-democracy protesters killed by the U.S.-allied regime, February 2011

Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to
the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the
others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression,
expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat
international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises
and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health." [136] According to
former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to
build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't
attack each other."[137] In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also
good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue
economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s,
under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct
investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken
political reforms.[138] Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still
dominates the United States' relations with the world". [139]
The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through
several tools [140] Examples of these tools are as follows:

A published yearly report by the State Department entitled

"Advancing Freedom and Democracy",[141] issued in compliance
with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was
known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S.
Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law). [142]

A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights

Practices." [143]

In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States

created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom
Awards." [144]

The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award"

recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign
affairs agencies posted abroad.[145]

The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are

informal discussions between newly confirmed
U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-
governmental organizations.[146]

The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit

created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by
President Ronald Reagan), which is mostly funded by the U.S.
Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic
institutions around the world.

By country or region[edit]
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the
subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new
article, as appropriate. (November 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
It has been suggested that this section be merged into Foreign relations of the United
States. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2016.
United Kingdom[edit]
Main article: United KingdomUnited States relations
Further information: Special Relationship and Anglosphere
Queen Elizabeth II welcomes President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama to Buckingham Palaceon
April 1, 2009.

United States foreign policy affirms its alliance with the United Kingdom as its most important [citation
needed]
bilateral relationship in the world, evidenced by aligned political affairs between the White
House and 10 Downing Street, as well as joint military operations carried out between the two
nations. While both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain close relationships with
many other nations around the world, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of
military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing with each other has
been described as "unparalleled" among major powers throughout the 20th and early 21st
century.[147]
The United States and Britain share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership.
American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct
investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion. [148]
Canada[edit]

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) and President Obama (left) meet in Ottawa in February
2009

Main article: CanadaUnited States relations

The bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States is of notable importance to both
countries. About 7585% of Canadian trade is with the United States, and Canada is the United
States' largest trading partner and chief supplier of oil. While there are disputed issues between
the two nations, relations are close and the two countries share the "world's longest undefended
border."[149] The border was demilitarized after the War of 1812 and, apart from minor raids[clarification
needed]
, has remained peaceful. Military collaboration began during World War II and continued
throughout the Cold War on both a bilateral basis and a multilateral relationship through NATO. A
high volume of trade and migration between the United States and Canada since the 1850s has
generated closer ties, despite continued Canadian fears of being culturally overwhelmed by its
neighbor, which is nine times larger in terms of population and eleven times larger in terms of
economy.[150][151] The two economies have increasingly merged since the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, which also includes Mexico.
Mexico[edit]
Main article: MexicoUnited States relations
The United States shares a unique and often complex relationship with Mexico. A history of
armed conflict goes back to the Texas Revolution in the 1830s, the MexicanAmerican War in the
1840s, and an American invasion in the 1910s. Important treaties include the Gadsden
Purchase, and multilaterally with Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The
central issue in recent years has been illegal immigration, followed by illegal gun sales (from the
U.S.), drug smuggling (to the U.S.) and escalating drug cartel violence just south of the U.S.-
Mexico border.[152][153]
Australia[edit]
Main article: AustraliaUnited States relations

Former Australian Prime MinisterKevin Rudd talks with United States President Barack Obama in
Washington

The United States' relationship with Australia is a very close one, with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton stating that "America doesn't have a better friend in the world than Australia". [154] The
relationship is formalized by the ANZUS treaty and the AustraliaUnited States Free Trade
Agreement. The two countries have a shared history, both have previously been British Colonies
and many Americans flocked to the Australian goldfields in the 19th century. At a strategic level,
the relationship really came to prominence in World War II, when the two nations worked
extremely closely in the Pacific War against Japan, with General Douglas MacArthur undertaking
his role as Supreme Allied Commander based in Australia, effectively having Australian troops
and resources under his command. During this period, the cultural interaction between Australia
and the U.S. were elevated to a higher level as over 1 million U.S. military personnel moved
through Australia during the course of the war. The relationship continued to evolve throughout
the second half of the 20th Century, and today now involves strong relationships at the executive
and mid levels of government and the military, leading Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, Kurt M. Campbell to declare that "in the last ten years, [Australia] has
ascended to one of the closest one or two allies [of the U.S.] on the planet". [155]
Middle East[edit]
Main article: United States foreign policy in the Middle East
The United States has many important allies in the Greater Middle East region. These allies
are Turkey, Saudi
Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait,Bahrain and Qatar. Israel and Egypt
are leading recipients of United States foreign aid, receiving $2.775 billion [42] and 1.75 billion[43] in
2010. Turkey is an ally of the United States through its membership in NATO, while all of the
other countries except Saudi Arabia and Qatar are major non-NATO allies.
The United States toppled the government of Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
[156]
Turkey is host to approximately 90 B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base.[157]Other allies
include Qatar, where 3,500 U.S. troops are based,[158] and Bahrain, where the United States
Navy maintains NSA Bahrain, home of NAVCENT and the Fifth Fleet.
Japan[edit]
Main article: JapanUnited States relations
The relationship began in the 1850s as the U.S. was a major factor in forcing Japan to resume
contacts with the outer world beyond a very restricted role. In the late 19th century the Japanese
sent many delegations to Europe, and some to the U.S., to discover and copy the latest
technology and thereby modernize Japan very rapidly and allow it to build its own empire. There
was some friction over control of Hawaii and the Philippines, but Japan stood aside as the U.S.
annexed those lands in 1898. Likewise the U.S. did not object when Japan took control of Korea.
The two nations cooperated with the European powers in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion in
China in 1900, but the U.S. was increasingly troubled about Japan's denial of the Open Door
Policy that would ensure that all nations could do business with China on an equal basis. [159]
President Theodore Roosevelt admired Japan's strength as it defeated a major European power,
Russia. He brokered an end to the war between Russia and Japan in 19056. Anti-Japanese
sentiment (especially on the West Coast) soured relations in the 190724 era. In the 1930s the
U.S. protested vehemently against Japan's seizure of Manchuria (1931), its war against China
(193745), and its seizure of Indochina (Vietnam) 194041. American sympathies were with
China and Japan rejected increasingly angry American demands that Japan pull out of China.
The two nations fought an all-out war 194145; the U.S. won a total victory, with heavy bombing
(including two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) that devastated Japan's 50 largest
industrial cities. The American army under Douglas MacArthur occupied and ruled Japan, 1945
51, with the successful goal of sponsoring a peaceful, prosperous and democratic nation. [160]
In 1951, the U.S. and Japan signed Treaty of San Francisco and Security Treaty Between the
United States and Japan, subsequently revised as Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security
between the United States and Japan in 1960, relations since then have been excellent. The
United States considers Japan to be one of its closest allies, and it is both a Major Non-NATO
ally and NATO contact country. The United States has several military bases in Japan
including Yokosuka, which harbors the U.S. 7th Fleet. The JSDF, or Japanese Self Defense
Force, cross train with the U.S. Military, often providing auxiliary security and conducting war
games. When the U.S.President Barack Obama met with Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso in
2009, he said the relationship with Japan as the "cornerstone of security in East Asia". [161] After
the several years of critical moment duringJapan's Democratic Party administration, President
Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reconfirmed the importance of its alliance and currently
the U.S. and Japan negotiating to participate Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership.[162][163]
South Korea[edit]
Main article: South KoreaUnited States relations
South KoreaUnited States relations have been most extensive since 1945, when the United
States helped establish capitalism in South Korea and led the UN-sponsored Korean
War against North Korea and China (19501953).[164] Stimulated by heavy American aid[by whom?],
South Korea's rapid economic growth, democratization and modernization greatly reduced its
U.S. dependency. Large numbers of U.S. forces remain in Korea. At the 2009 G-20 London
summit, U.S. President Barack Obama called South Korea "one of America's closest allies and
greatest friends." [165]
China[edit]
Main article: China-United States relations

President Barack Obama addresses the opening session of the first U.S.China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue.

American relations with the People's Republic of China are quite strong, yet complex. A great
amount of trade between the two countries necessitates positive political relations, although
occasional disagreements over tariffs, currency exchange rates and the Political status of
Taiwan do occur. Nevertheless, the United States and China have an extremely extensive
partnership. The U.S. criticizes China on human rights issues and in recent years, China has
criticized the United States on human rights in return.
Taiwan[edit]
Main article: Republic of ChinaUnited States relations
Taiwan (officially the Republic of China), does not have official diplomatic relations with America
and no longer receives diplomatic recognition from the State Department of the United States,
but it conducts unofficial diplomatic relations through its de facto embassy, commonly known as
the "American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)", and is considered to be a strong Asian ally and
supporter of the United States.[166]
ASEAN[edit]
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an important partner for United States in
both economic and geostrategic aspects. ASEAN's geostrategic importance stems from many
factors, including: the strategic location of member countries, the large shares of global trade that
pass through regional waters, and the alliances and partnerships which the United States shares
with ASEAN member states. In July 2009, the United States signed ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation, which establishes guiding principles intended to build confidence among its
signatories with the aim of maintaining regional peace and stability.[167] Trade flows are robust and
increasing between America and the ASEAN region.
Indonesia[edit]
Main article: IndonesiaUnited States relations
As the largest ASEAN member, Indonesia has played an active and prominent role in developing
the organization.[168] For United States, Indonesia is important for dealing with certain issues; such
as terrorism,[169] democracy, and how United States project its relations with Islamic world, since
Indonesia has the world's largest Islamic population, and one that honors and respects religious
diversity.[170] The U.S. eyes Indonesia as a potential strategic ally in Southeast Asia.[171] During his
stately visit to Indonesia, U.S. PresidentBarack Obama has held up Indonesia as an example of
how a developing nation can embrace democracy and diversity.[172][173]
Malaysia[edit]
Main article: MalaysiaUnited States relations
Despite increasingly strained relations under the Mahathir Mohamad government, ties have been
thawed under Najib Razak's administration. Economic ties are particularly robust, with the United
States being Malaysia's largest trading partner and Malaysia is the tenth-largest trading partner
of the U.S. Annual two-way trade amounts to $49 billion. The United States and Malaysia
launched negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) in June 2006.
The United States and Malaysia enjoy strong security cooperation. Malaysia hosts the Southeast
Asia Regional Center for Counterterrorism (SEARCCT), where over 2000 officials from various
countries have received training. The United States is among the foreign countries that has
collaborated with the center in conducting capacity building programmes. The U.S. and Malaysia
share a strong military-to-military relationship with numerous exchanges, training, joint exercises,
and visits.
Myanmar[edit]
Main article: BurmaUnited States relations
Bilateral ties have generally been strained but are slowly improving. The United States has
placed broad sanctions on Burma because of the military crackdown in 1988 and the military
regime's refusal to honour the election results of the 1990 People's Assembly election. Similarly,
the European Union has placed embargoes on Burma, including an arms embargo, cessation of
trade preferences, and suspension of all aid with the exception of humanitarian aid.[174]
US and European government sanctions against the military government, alongside boycotts
and other types direct pressure on corporations by western supporters of the Burmese
democracy movement, have resulted in the withdrawal from Burma of most U.S. and many
European companies. However, several Western companies remain due to loopholes in the
sanctions.[175] Asian corporations have generally remained willing to continue investing in
Myanmar and to initiate new investments, particularly in natural resource extraction.
Ongoing reforms have improved relations between Burma and the United States.
Philippines[edit]
Main article: PhilippinesUnited States relations
The United States ruled the Philippines from 1898 to 1946. The Spanish government ceded the
Philippines to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris that ended the SpanishAmerican
War. The United States finally recognized Philippine independence on July 4, 1946 in the Treaty
of Manila.[176] July 4 was observed in the Philippines asIndependence Day until August 4, 1964
when, upon the advice of historians and the urging of nationalists, President Diosdado
Macapagal signed into law Republic Act No. 4166 designating June 12 as the
country's Independence Day.[177] Since 2003 the U.S. has designated the Philippines as a Major
Non-NATO Ally.
Thailand[edit]
Main article: ThailandUnited States relations
Thailand and the U.S. are both former Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) members,
being close partners throughout the Cold War, and are still close allies. Since 2003, the U.S. has
designated Thailand as a Major Non-NATO Ally.
Vietnam[edit]
Main article: United StatesVietnam relations
United States involved in Vietnam War in 1955 to 1975. In 1995, President Bill
Clinton announced the formal normalization of diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Today, the U.S.
eyes Vietnam as a potential strategic ally in Southeast Asia.[171]
Eastern Europe[edit]
President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk ofUkraine at the conclusion of their
bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, March 12, 2014.

U.S. Marines greet local Albanian boys in Kosovo on June 25, 1999

American relations with Eastern Europe are influenced by the legacy of the Cold War. Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, former Communist-bloc states in Europe have gradually
transitioned to democracy and capitalism. Many have also joined the European Unionand NATO,
strengthening economic ties with the broader Western world and gaining the military protection of
the United States via theNorth Atlantic Treaty.
Kosovo[edit]
Main article: KosovoUnited States relations
The UN Security Council divided on the question of Kosovo's declaration of independence.
Kosovo declared its independence on February 17, 2008, whilst Serbia objected that Kosovo is
part of its territory. Of the five members with veto power in the UN Security Council, the USA, UK,
and France recognized the declaration of independence, and China has expressed concern,
while Russia considers it illegal. "In its declaration of independence, Kosovo committed itself to
the highest standards of democracy, including freedom and tolerance and justice for citizens of
all ethnic backgrounds", President George W Bush said on February 19, 2008.[178][179]

See also[edit]
History of U.S. foreign policy

International relations of the Great Powers (18141919)

Timeline of United States diplomatic history

Constitutional and international law[edit] Military[edit]

Advice and consent 2003 invasion of Iraq

List of United States treaties NATO

Missouri v. Holland United States Foreign Military Financing

Treaty Clause United States involvement in regime chang

Diplomacy[edit]
United States military aid
Council on Foreign Relations Policy and doctrine[edit]

Cowboy diplomacy United States and state terrorism

List of diplomatic missions of the United States United States and state-sponsored terrorism

George Washington's Farewell Address Anti-Americanism

United States and the United Nations American imperialism

United States Agency for International Development American exceptionalism

List of diplomatic missions in the United States Bush Doctrine

United States foreign aid Carter Doctrine

The Washington Diplomat China containment policy

Intelligence[edit]
Containment
Extraordinary rendition
Dtente
Special Activities Division
Foreign policy of the Barack Obama admin
Torture and the United States
Human rights in the United States

Kirkpatrick Doctrine
 Human Rights Record of the United States

Monroe Doctrine

Nixon Doctrine

Powell Doctrine

Reagan Doctrine

Roosevelt Corollary

Special Relationship

Truman Doctrine

Criticism of American foreign policy

United States foreign policy in the Middle E

References[edit]
1. Jump up^ "Alphabetical List of Bureaus and Offices". U.S.
Department of State. RetrievedApril 20, 2016.

2. Jump up^ "Bureau of Budget and Planning". Retrieved 18

February 2015.

3. Jump up^ "About the Committee". Retrieved 18 February 2015.

4. Jump up^ James M. McCormick, American Foreign Policy and

Process (2009) ch 7-8

5. Jump up^ George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S.

Foreign Relations Since 1776(2008)

6. Jump up^ Richard Russell, "American Diplomatic Realism: A

Tradition Practised and Preached by George F.
Kennan," Diplomacy and Statecraft, Nov 2000, Vol. 11 Issue 3,
pp 15983

7. Jump up^ Oren, Michael B. (2005-11-03). "The Middle East and

the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815".

8. Jump up^ Donald L. Miller (2015). Supreme City: How Jazz Age
Manhattan Gave Birth to Modern America. Simon and Schuster.
pp. 4445.

9. Jump up^ Seymour Martin Lipset, "Neoconservatism: Myth and

reality." Society 25.5 (1988): pp 9-13online.

10. Jump up^ Colin Dueck, Hard Line: The Republican Party and
U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II (2010).
11. Jump up^ Nikolas K. Gvosdev (2008-01-02). "FDR's
Children". National Interest. Archived fromthe original on August
26, 2010. Retrieved 2010-01-13. Hachigian ... and Sutphen ...
recognize that the global balance of power is changing; that
despite America's continued predominance, the other pivotal
powers "do challenge American dominance and impinge on the
freedom of action the U.S. has come to enjoy and expect." Rather
than focusing on the negatives, however, they believe that these
six powers have the same vested interests: All are dependent on
the free flow of goods around the world and all require global
stability in order to ensure continued economic growth (and the
prosperity it engenders).

12. Jump up^ Laurence H. Tribe, "Taking Text and Structure

Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional
Interpretation," 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1227 (1995).

13. Jump up^ The power of the League was limited by the United
States' refusal to join.Northedge, F.S (1986). The League of
Nations: Its Life and Times, 19201946. Holmes & Meier.
pp. 276278. ISBN 0-7185-1316-9.

14. Jump up^ The United States was responsible for 36% of
greenhouse gas emissions at the time of the Kyoto Protocol

15. Jump up^ The United States Should Ratify The Law Of The Sea
Convention (due to China citing U.S. citing non-ratification as a
reason it doesn't need to follow the agreement)

16. Jump up^ Why won't America ratify the UN convention on

children's rights?

17. Jump up^ Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Schott, Jeffrey J.

(1994). Western Hemisphere Economic Integration. Peterson
Institute. pp. 13222.

18. Jump up^ John Pike. "Gates Delivers Keynote Address to Open
Asia Security Conference". Retrieved 18 February 2015.

19. Jump up^ Shanker, Tom. "Gates Talks of Boosting Asian Security
Despite Budget Cuts." New York Times, 1 June 2011.

20. Jump up^ "United States - U.S. Energy Information

Administration (EIA)". Retrieved April 20,2016.

21. Jump up^ "Company Level Imports". Retrieved April 20, 2016.

22. Jump up^ Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China Falls as Oil
Prices Rise, Bloomberg.com

23. Jump up^ Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia, New York
Times

24. Jump up^ The End of Cheap Oil, National Geographic

25. Jump up^ James Paul - Global Policy Forum. "Crude Designs:".
Retrieved 18 February 2015.

26. Jump up^ The war is about oil but it's not that simple, msnbc.com
27. Jump up^ The United States Navy and the Persian Gulf

28. Jump up^ What if the Chinese were to apply the Carter Doctrine?,
Haaretz - Israel News

29. Jump up^ Selling the Carter Doctrine, TIME

30. Jump up^ Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil,
Times Online

31. Jump up^ Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq, The Guardian

32. Jump up^ See Energy Information Administration, "Canada"

(2009 report)

33. Jump
up^ http://www.agoa.gov/resources/US_African_Trade_Profile_20
09.pdf

34. ^ Jump up to:a b See "FY 2014 Omnibus State and Foreign
Operations Appropriations" (Jan 2014)

35. Jump up^ Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.

Programs and Policy

36. Jump up^ Stanford University Press. "The Politics of American

Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives
over Foreign Affairs - Peter Hays Gries". Retrieved18
February 2015.

37. Jump up^ http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/

38. Jump up^ "U.S. Policy in Colombia | Amnesty International USA".

Amnestyusa.org. Retrieved2014-08-18.

39. Jump up^ "The News International: Latest, Breaking, Pakistan,

Sports and Video News". Retrieved 18 February 2015.

40. Jump up^ Fox News, 1 November 2004 Analysts Ponder U.S.
Basing in Iraq

41. Jump up^ Afghanistan: US foreign assistance

42. ^ Jump up to:a b https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-

Israel/aid2010.html Congress Approves FY2010 Aid to Israel

43. ^ Jump up to:a b c http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-aid-tied-to-

purchase-of-arms-20100101-llsb.htmlUS aid tied to purchase of
arms

44. Jump up^ Aid to Pakistan

45. Jump
up^ http://www.ciponline.org/facts/below_the_radar_eng.pdf

46. Jump up^ Jordan: Background and U.S relations

47. Jump up^ Federation of American Scientists. Missile Defense
Milestones. Accessed March 10, 2006.

48. Jump up^ Johann Hari: Obama's chance to end the fantasy that
is Star Wars, The Independent, November 13, 2008

49. Jump up^ Historical Documents: Reagan's 'Star Wars' speech,

CNN Cold War

50. Jump up^ "Son of "Star Wars" - How Missile Defense Systems
Will Work". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved 18 February 2015.

51. ^ Jump up to:a b Missile defense backers now cite Russia threat

52. Jump up^ U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense,

washingtonpost.com

53. Jump up^ Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech

Republic

54. Jump up^ Europe diary: Missile defence, BBC News

55. Jump up^ "Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe".

Retrieved 18 February 2015.

56. Jump up^ Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield,

Telegraph

57. Jump up^ China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn U.S. missile
defense plans, International Herald Tribune

58. Jump up^ Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence,
The Guardian

59. Jump up^ U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense,

USATODAY.com

60. Jump up^ Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal, The New York
Times, August 15, 2008

61. Jump up^ Russia angry over U.S. missile shield, Al Jazeera
English, August 15, 2008

62. ^ Jump up to:a b Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de (Spring 2004). "Why

Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest. 2. Also
see this page.

63. ^ Jump up to:a b Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military

Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace
Research. 33 (4): 391402.doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002.

64. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Tures, John A. "Operation Exporting Freedom:

The Quest for Democratization via United States Military
Operations" (PDF). Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and
International Relations.PDF file.
65. ^ Jump up to:a b Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States
and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 243265.

66. ^ Jump up to:a b Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of

Bayonets. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
p. 183. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.

67. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998).

"The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy:
Evaluating the Record". International Interactions. 24(2): 91
114. doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.

68. Jump up^ Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting

Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns
Hopkins University Press. pp. 1, 4, 5. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.

69. Jump up^ Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The

United States in Central America. W. W. Norton &
Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9.

70. Jump up^ Factors included limits on executive power, clear rules
for the transition of power,universal adult suffrage, and competitive
elections.

71. Jump up^ Pei, Samia Amin (March 17, 2004). "Why Nation-
Building Fails in Mid-Course".International Herald Tribune.

72. Jump up^ Peceny, p. 186.

73. Jump up^ Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting Democracy:

Fulfilling America's Destiny. Washington, DC: American Enterprise
Institute Press. pp. 91118. ISBN 0-8447-3734-8.

74. Jump up^ Krasner, Stephen D. (November 26, 2003). "We Don't
Know How To Build Democracy".Los Angeles Times.

75. Jump up^ Przeworski, Adam; Przeworski, Adam; Limongi Neto,

Fernando Papaterra; Alvarez, Michael M. (1996). "What Makes
Democracy Endure" ( ). Journal of Democracy. 7 (1): 39
Scholar search

55. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0016.[dead link]

76. Jump up^ Peceny, p. 193

77. Jump up^ Peceny, p. 2

78. Jump up^ Review: Shifter, Michael; Peceny, Mark (Winter

2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American
Politics and Society. 43 (4): 150. doi:10.2307/3177036.

79. Jump
up^ "http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/16/". P
ew Research Center.External link in |title= (help);

80. Jump up^ "Special Report: Secret History of the CIA in Iran". The
New York Times. 2000.

81. Jump up^ Stephen Schlesinger (3 June 2011). Ghosts of

Guatemala's Past. The New York Times. Retrieved 5 July 2014.
82. Jump up^ Simpson, Bradley. Economists with Guns: Authoritarian
Development and U.S.-Indonesian Relations, 1960
1968. Stanford University Press, 2010. p. 1. ISBN 0804771820

83. Jump up^ Brad Simpson (Winter 2013). The Act of Killing and the
Dilemmas of History. Film Quarterly. Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 10-13.
Published by: University of California Press. Retrieved 9 May
2014.

84. Jump up^ Brad Simpson (28 February 2014). It's Our Act of
Killing, Too. The Nation. Retrieved 9 May 2014.

85. ^ Jump up to:a b Kai Thaler (December 2, 2015). 50 years ago

today, American diplomats endorsed mass killings in Indonesia.
Here's what that means for today. The Washington Post.Retrieved
December 4, 2015.

86. ^ Jump up to:a b Margaret Scott (November 2, 2015) The

Indonesian Massacre: What Did the US Know? The New York
Review of Books. Retrieved November 6, 2015.

87. Jump up^ Samantha Michaels (October 1, 2015). It's Been 50

Years Since the Biggest US-Backed Genocide You've Never
Heard Of. Mother Jones. Retrieved December 25, 2015.

88. Jump up^ Bellamy, Alex J. (2012). Massacres and Morality: Mass
Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-928842-9. p. 210.

89. ^ Jump up to:a b Mark Aarons (2007). "Justice Betrayed: Post-1945

Responses to Genocide." In David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L.
H. McCormack (eds). The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising
Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International
Humanitarian Law).Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN
9004156917 pp. 8081

90. Jump up^ Vickers, Adrian (2005). A History of Modern

Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54262-6 p.
157

91. Jump up^ Friend, Theodore (2003). Indonesian

Destinies. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01137-6 p. 117

92. Jump up^ Sabarini, Prodita (February 16, 2014). Director calls for
US to acknowledge its role in 1965 killings. The Jakarta
Post. Retrieved November 5, 2015.

93. Jump up^ U.S. Seeks to Keep Lid on Far East Purge Role. The
Associated Press via The Los Angeles Times, July 28, 2001.
Retrieved November 6, 2015.

94. Jump up^ Thomas Blanton (ed). CIA STALLING STATE

DEPARTMENT HISTORIES: STATE HISTORIANS CONCLUDE
U.S. PASSED NAMES OF COMMUNISTS TO INDONESIAN
ARMY, WHICH KILLED AT LEAST 105,000 IN 1965-66. National
Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 52., July 27, 2001.
Retrieved November 6, 2015.

95. Jump up^ CIA Admits Involvement in Chile. ABC

News. September 20
96. Jump up^ John Dinges. The Condor Years: How Pinochet And
His Allies Brought Terrorism To Three Continents. The New Press,
2005. p. 20. ISBN 1565849779

97. Jump up^ Joe Renouard, Human Rights in American Foreign

Policy: From the 1960s to the Soviet Collapse (U of Pennsylvania
Press, 2016). 324 pp.

98. ^ Jump up to:a b Crabb, Cecil V.; Pat Holt (1992). Invitation to
Struggle: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy (2nd ed.).
Michigan: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 187211. ISBN 978-0-
87187-622-5.

99. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Forsythe, David (1988). Human Rights and U.S.
Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida. pp. 123. ISBN 978-0-8130-0885-1.

100. Jump up^ Daniel Goldhagen (2009). Worse Than

War. PublicAffairs. ISBN 1-58648-769-8 p.537

"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client

states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of
the Soviets."

101. Jump up^ "The Cold War in Central America, 1975-1991" John
H. Coatsworth, Ch 10

102. Jump up^ Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (2014). The
Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political
Economy of Human Rights: Volume I. Haymarket Books. p.
xviii. ISBN 1608464067

103. Jump up^ McVeigh, Karen (December 6, 2011). "Gay rights

must be criterion for U.S. aid allocations, instructs Obama". The
Guardian. London. Retrieved January 4, 2013.

104. Jump up^ Adomanis, Mark (December 19, 2013). "Barack

Obama Is Right To Promote Gay Rights In Russia, Now He
Should Be Consistent". Forbes. Retrieved December 25, 2013.

105. Jump up^ Bershidsky, Leonid (December 19, 2013). "Putin

Plays Games to Salvage Olympics". Bloomberg.com.
Retrieved December 25, 2013.

106. Jump up^ Pascale Bonnefoy (30 June 2014). Chilean Court
Rules U.S. Had Role in Murders. The New York Times. Retrieved
4 July 2014.

107. Jump up^ "Memorandum for the Secretary of State". 15

September 2005. Retrieved 18 February2015.

108. Jump up^ Noam Chomsky (July 3, 2014). Whose Security?

How Washington Protects Itself and the Corporate Sector. Moyers
& Company. Retrieved July 10, 2014.

109. Jump up^ Eric Lichtblau (October 26, 2014). In Cold War, U.S.
Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis.The New York Times. Retrieved
November 10, 2014.
110.Jump up^ The Nazis Next Door: Eric Lichtblau on How the CIA &
FBI Secretly Sheltered Nazi War Criminals. Democracy
Now! October 31, 2014.

111. Jump up^ Peter Kornbluh (September 11, 2013). The Pinochet
File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. The
New Press. ISBN 1595589120 p. xviii

112.^ Jump up to:a b Walter L. Hixson (2009). The Myth of American

Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale
University Press. p. 223. ISBN 0300151314

113.Jump up^ What Guilt Does the U.S. Bear in Guatemala? The
New York Times, May 19, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2014.

114.Jump up^ Duncan Campbell (December 5, 2003). Kissinger

approved Argentinian 'dirty war'. The Guardian. Retrieved August
29, 2015.

115.Jump up^ Hissne Habr, Ex-President of Chad, Is Convicted of

War Crimes. The New York Times. May 30, 2016.

116.Jump up^ From U.S. Ally to Convicted War Criminal: Inside

Chad's Hissne Habr's Close Ties to Reagan Admin. Democracy
Now! May 31, 2016.

117.Jump up^ Looking Away from Genocide. The New Yorker.

November 19, 2013.

118.Jump up^ Greg Grandin (2011). The Last Colonial Massacre:

Latin America in the Cold War.University of Chicago Press. p.
75. ISBN 9780226306902

119.Jump up^ J. Patrice McSherry (2002). "Tracking the Origins of a

State Terror Network: Operation Condor". Latin American
Perspectives. 29 (1): 3660.doi:10.1177/0094582X0202900103.

120. Jump up^ U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria kill civilians, rights groups
say. CNN. July 20, 2016.

121. Jump up^ Jeremy Scahill and the staff of The

Intercept (2016). The Assassination Complex: Inside the
Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program. Simon &
Schuster. ISBN 9781501144134

122. Jump up^ Goodenough, Patrick. "And The Country Posing The
Greatest Threat to Peace as 2013 Ends is ". CNS News.
Retrieved 2014-08-18.

123. Jump up^ "US the biggest threat to world peace in 2013 poll".
Rt.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.

124. Jump up^ Editorial, Post (2014-01-05). "US is the greatest

threat to world peace: poll | New York Post". Nypost.com.
Retrieved 2014-08-18.

125. Jump up^ The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships,

19651989. David F. Schmitz. 2006.
126. ^ Jump up to:a b Do the sums, then compare U.S. and
Communist crimes from the Cold WarTelegraph, 11 December
2005, Niall Ferguson

127. Jump up^ Give peace a rating May 31, 2007, from The
Economist print edition

128. Jump up^ Japan ranked as world's 5th most peaceful nation:
report Japan Today, May 31, 2007

129. Jump up^ Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale

University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9. pp. 221224, 314.

130. Jump up^ DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel New

Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Online
links: [1] [2] [3]

131. Jump up^ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara

Harff, 2003.

132. Jump up^ Caliendo, S.M. (1999). "All the News That's Fit to
Print? New York Times Coverage of Human-Rights
Violations". The Harvard International Journal of Press Politics. 4:
4869. Retrieved 2008-04-02.

133. Jump up^ Caliendo, Stephen.; Gibney, Mark.

(2006). "American Print Media Coverage of Human Rights
Violations". Retrieved 2008-04-02.

134. Jump up^ Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence

Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.

135. Jump up^ W. John Green (June 1, 2015). A History of Political

Murder in Latin America: Killing the Messengers of Change. SUNY
Press. p. 147. ISBN 1438456638

136. Jump up^ "Democracy". Retrieved 18 February 2015.

137. Jump up^ Clinton, Bill (January 28, 2000). "1994 State Of The
Union Address". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-01-22.

138. Jump up^ [4]

139. Jump up^ Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (2010-11-

28). "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy". The New
York Times. Retrieved 2010-12-26. The cables show that nearly a
decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark shadow of
terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the
world. ...

140. Jump up^ "Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor".

Retrieved 18 February 2015.

141. Jump up^ "Advancing Freedom and Democracy".

Retrieved April 20, 2016.

142. Jump up^ "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The

U.S. Record". Retrieved 18 February2015.
143. Jump up^ "Human Rights Reports". Retrieved 18
February 2015.

144. Jump up^ http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c20063.htm.

Retrieved May 28, 2007. Missing or empty|title= (help)[dead link]

145. Jump up^ [5][dead link]

146. Jump up^ http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c18970.htm.

Retrieved May 28, 2007. Missing or empty|title= (help)[dead link]

147. Jump up^ James, Wither (March 2006). "An Endangered

Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the
Early Twenty-first Century". European Security. 15 (1): 47
65.doi:10.1080/09662830600776694. ISSN 0966-2839.

148. Jump up^ US Department of State, Background Note on the

United Kingdom

149. Jump up^ John Herd Thompson, and Stephen J.

Randall, Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies (4th ed.
McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008) is the standard scholarly
survey

150. Jump up^ "5. Report for Selected Countries and

Subjects". International Monetary Fund. 2011-11-09.
Retrieved 2011-11-09. 15,064 billions (figure for 2011) 313 million
persons

151. Jump up^ "Canada". International Monetary Fund.

Retrieved 2011-11-05.

152. Jump up^ Tim Padgett, "Mexico's Caldern Needs to Listen,

Not Just Lecture U.S." TIME May 19, 2010 online

153. Jump up^ Burton Kirkwood, The History of Mexico (2010)

pp 9799, 138-52, 216

154. Jump up^ Lyndal Curtis for The World Today (2009-03-
25). "Rudd's warm Washington welcome - ABC News (Australian
Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. Retrieved 2014-08-18.

155. Jump up^ "Q+A: Guyon Espiner interviews Kurt

Campbell". Television New Zealand. October 11, 2009.
Retrieved September 30, 2011.

156. Jump up^ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf The Cost

of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Global War on Terror Operations
since 9/11

157. Jump up^ "Report: US considers withdrawing nuclear bombs

from Turkey". Todayszaman.com. 2010-04-03. Retrieved 2014-08-
18.

158. Jump up^ Sciutto, Jim. "U.S. Troops Preparing for War in Qatar
- ABC News". Abcnews.go.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
159. Jump up^ Foster Rhea Dulles, Yankees and Samurai:
America's Role in the Emergence of Modern Japan, 1791
1900 (1965)

160. Jump up^ Walter LaFeber, The Clash: A History of USJapan

Relations (W.W. Norton, 1997)

161. Jump up^ Kessler, Glenn (2009-02-25). "Japanese Prime

Minister Meets With Obama, Says Economy Complicates North
Korea Talks". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-01-24.

162. Jump up^ Calmes, Jackie (2013-02-22). "Japan and United

States Reaffirm Their Close Ties".New York Times.
Retrieved 2013-02-23.

163. Jump up^ "Joint Statement by the United States and

Japan". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved April 20,2016.

164. Jump up^ Jae Ho Chung, Between Ally and Partner: Korea-
China Relations and the United States(2008) excerpt and text
search

165. Jump up^ "President Obama Vows Strengthened U.S.-South

Korea Ties". Archived from the original on 2009-07-04.

166. Jump up^ Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, ed., Dangerous Strait: The
U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis (2005)

167. Jump up^ Daniel Seah, "The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
in Southeast Asia: The Issue of Non-Intervention and its Accession
by Australia and the USA," Chinese Journal of international Law
and (2012) 11#4 pp 785 - 822 online

168. Jump up^ See "Editorial: The ASEAN cage Jakarta Post7 July
2011".

169. Jump up^ U.S.-Indonesia Military Relations in The Anti-Terror

War

170. Jump up^ Indonesia: An Important Focus Point for World

Security

171. ^ Jump up to:a b "404". Retrieved 18 February 2015.

172. Jump up^ "BBC News - Obama hails Indonesia as example for
world". BBC News. November 10, 2010. Retrieved 18
February 2015.

173. Jump up^ Obama delivers a speech in the University of

Indonesia

174. Jump up^ "The EU's relations with Burma /

Myanmar". European Union. Archived from the original on July 25,
2006. Retrieved 2006-07-13.

175. Jump up^ The List: Burma's Economic Lifelines. Foreign

Policy. October 2007
 176. Jump up^ TREATY OF GENERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES. SIGNED AT MANILA, ON 4 JULY 1946(pdf),
United Nations, retrieved 2007-12-10

177. Jump up^ REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4166 - AN ACT CHANGING

THE DATE OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY FROM JULY
FOUR TO JUNE TWELVE, AND DECLARING JULY FOUR AS
PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC DAY, FURTHER AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE SECTION TWENTY-NINE OF THE REVISED
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, Chanrobles law library, August 4, 1964,
retrieved 2008-06-11

178. Jump up^ Bush Hails Kosovo Independence, U.S. Department

of State's Bureau of International Information Programs

179. Jump up^ Bush insists Kosovo must be independent and

receives hero's welcome in Albania, The Guardian

Further reading[edit]
Bailey, Thomas. A Diplomatic History of the American People (10th ed.
Prentice Hall, 1980)

Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since
World War II (Common Courage Press, 2003)

Borgwardt, Elizabeth. "A New Deal for the World" (Harvard UP, 2005)

Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global

Dominance (Metropolitan Books, 2003)

Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign

Relations: Volume 4, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945
1991 (Cambridge UP, 1995)

Dueck, Colin. Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign
Policy since World War II (2010).

Fawcett, Louise, ed. International Relations of the Middle East (3rd ed.
Oxford U.P. 2013)

Freedman, Lawrence. A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the

Middle East (PublicAffairs, 2009)

Gries, Peter Hays. The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How

Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign
Affairs (Stanford University Press, 2014)

Hastedt, Glenn P. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy (Facts on

File, 2004)

Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of

Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the
Record". International Interactions. 24 (2): 91
114.doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.
 Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign
Relations Since 1776 (Oxford History of the United States) (2008)

Hixson, Walter L. The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity

and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press, 2009. ISBN
0300151314

Hook, Steven W. and John Spanier. American Foreign Policy Since

WWII (19th ed. 2012)

Ikenberry, G. John, ed. American Foreign Policy: Theoretical

Essays (6th ed. Wadsworth, 2010), 640pp; essays by scholars

Iriye, Akira. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations:

Volume 3, The Globalizing of America, 19131945 (Cambridge UP,
1995)

Jentleson, Bruce W. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice

in the 21st Century (4th ed. W. W. Norton, 2010)

Jentleson, Bruce W. and Thomas G. Paterson, eds. Encyclopedia of

U.S. Foreign Relations (4 vol 1997), long historical articles by scholars

LaFeber, Walter. The Cambridge History of American Foreign

Relations: The American Search for Opportunity, 18651913, vol.
2 (Cambridge UP, 1995)

Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The

United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University
Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.

McCormick, James M. et al. The Domestic Sources of American

Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (2012)

McDougall, Walter. "Promised Land, Crusader State" (2004)

Mead, Walter Russell, and Richard C. Leone. Special Providence:

American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (2002)

Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the

Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391
402. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002.JSTOR 424565.

Nichols, Christopher McKnight. "Promise and Peril: America at the

Dawn of a Global Age" (2011)

Paterson, Thomas G. and others. American Foreign Relations (6th ed.

2 vol, Wadsworth, 2004), a detailed history

Perkins, Bradford. The Cambridge History of American Foreign

Relations: Volume 1, The Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776
1865 (Cambridge UP, 1995)

Sergent, Daniel J. A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of

American Foreign Relations in the 1970s (2015)
 Schulzinger, Robert. A Companion to American Foreign
Relations (Wiley Blackwell Companions to American History) (2006).
26 essays by scholars; emphasis on historiography

Smith, Tony; Richard C. Leone (1995). America's Mission: The United

States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth
Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04466-X.

Watry, David M. Diplomacy at the Brink: Eisenhower, Churchill, and

Eden in the Cold War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,
2014.

Wittkopf, Eugene R. et al. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and

Process (2007)

External links[edit]
History of the United States' relations with the countries of the
world

Milestones of U.S. diplomatic history

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS): Official

Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Relations

Foreign Relations and International Aid from UCB Libraries G

U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy, a background Q&A

by Council on Foreign Relations

Foreign Relations of the United States 18611960 (full text from

the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries)

Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index Tracking survey of

American public attitudes on foreign policy, conducted by Public
Agenda with Foreign Affairs magazine.

An interactive map of some examples of a sampling of U.S.

Foreign Policy

Analysis of Congressional-Executive Agreements (Article by

Steve Charnovitz from the American Journal of International
Law)

A PDF file of the Congressional Research Service report, Library

of Congress, Treaties and other International Agreements: the
Role of the United States Senate

Rethinking U.S. Aid from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs
Digital Archives

Peter Gowan interview on U.S. foreign policy since 1945

 The Good Country from Commentary

The American Empire: Murder Inc. Chris Hedges interviews

American investigative journalist Allan Nairn

[show]

Public policy of the United States

[show]

Foreign relations of the United States

[show]

United States articles

Categories:
United States law
Foreign policy
United States foreign policy

Navigation menu
Not logged in

Talk

Contributions

Create account

Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Search
Go

Main page
Contents
Featured content
 Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages

Deutsch
Espaol

Franais
Bahasa Melayu

Portugus
Romn

Simple English
Suomi

Edit links
This page was last modified on 10 November 2016, at 15:37.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia
 Developers

Cookie statement

Mobile view