Example Of Research Paper On Safeguarding The National Security Of The United States

Research Paper.

This research paper critically evaluates the US foreign policy and finds out if it is geared towards maintaining an ‘American empire’. 
In addition to all the other policies pertaining to a government, the foreign policy plays a key part in maintaining a good and positive image of the country. It helps to maintain a healthy relationship with all the other countries of the world, which ultimately leads to a peaceful state within the country. A smart foreign policy would always tries to maintain a balance between the benefit of the country itself and all the other countries of the world. A good foreign policy ensures that its people are provided with all the rights in a foreign country. A country’s policies should not only support its people within the boundaries of the country; however, it should also be helpful in the other countries of the world (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
The United States has been entangled in world legislative issues all through the twentieth century, and accordingly, remote approach takes up a lot of government's opportunity, vitality, and cash.
A central ideology of the U.S. government is to direct relations with the almost 200 different countries on the planet. A country is a sovereign nation, and all things considered, has the most astounding power over its domains. All sovereign states are theoretically equal.
Foreign policy decides how America conducts relations with different nations. It is intended to further certain goals. It looks to guarantee America's security and safeguard. It looks for the ability to ensure and venture America's national investments around the globe. National investment forms foreign policy and spreads an extensive variety of political, monetary, military, ideological, and helpful concerns (Bailey, 2009).
America's foreign policy has changed over the long run mirroring the change to its greatest advantage. Initially, as upcoming new country after the Revolutionary War, America's prime national investment was to keep up its autonomy from all the more effective European nations. Ensured by the Atlantic Ocean, its major foreign policy, as embodied by the Monroe Doctrine, was to breaking point European endeavors of further colonization of the Western Hemisphere (Viotti and Paul, 2010).

Advancing world peace and a protected worldwide environment
Keeping up an offset of force among countries
Working with partners to take care of worldwide issues
Advancing majority rule qualities and human rights
Facilitating helpful remote exchange and worldwide association in universal exchange associations
Inspecting these objectives nearly uncovers that they are in light of collaboration with different countries, albeit "saving the national security of the United States" infers conceivable rivalry and clash. The maintainability of American power eventually relies on upon the degree to which others trust it is utilized not simply in U.S. hobbies however to their greatest advantage too. Tailing its triumph in World War II, the United States drove the push to make not just new security foundations, for example, the United Nations and NATO, additionally new administrations to advance financial recuperation, improvement, and flourishing, for example, the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods money related framework, and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs to advance organized commerce. These foundations and assentions saved and expanded American power yet in a manner that profited all who took part. The test for the United States is to do likewise today. A significant part of the remote approach wrangle in the United States today spins around evaluations of the crucial significance of American power and globalization. Americanists, alleged on the grounds that they underscore American power, see a world in which the United States can utilize its prevalent force to get its route, paying little respect to what others need. They accept the United States must summon the will to go only it if fundamental. Globalists underscore globalization. They see a world that resists one-sided U.S arrangements and rather requires universal collaboration. They caution against suspecting that America can go only it
Americanists see two extraordinary excellences in America's power. To begin with, it empowers the United States to set its own remote strategy goals and to attain to them without depending on others. The outcome is an inclination for one-sided activity, unbound by universal understandings or organizations that would somehow compel America's capacity to act. As Charles Krauthammer puts it, "An exceptionally prevailing United Statesis in the one of a kind position of having the capacity to mold its own outside arrangement. Following 10 years of Prometheus playing dwarf, the first errand of the new [Bush] organization is exactly to reassert American opportunity of activity." The perspectives, inclination, and diversions of partners, companions, or any other individual ought to consequently have no impact on American activity (Doug and Cox, 2012).
Second, in light of the fact that American force empowers the United States to seek after its diversions however it sees fit, outside strategy ought to try to keep up, amplify, and reinforce that relative position of force. As President Bush told graduating West Point cadets last June, "America has, and means to keep, military quality past test, consequently making the destabilizing arms races of different periods pointless, and restricting competitions to exchange and different quest for peace." at the end of the day, the United States can attain to its approach goals best in the event that it can keep others from procuring the force important to contradict it adequately when investments conflict. It is as great a meaning of what would constitute an American realm as one can get (Bailey, 2009).
For the vast majority of the twentieth century, the United States characterized its foreign policy in connection to the Soviet Union, as the two nations combat one another for predominance amid the Cold War. In spite of the fact that the two nations themselves never got into a fight, they occupied with social, political, and monetary rivalry around the globe. Taking after the falls of the Soviet Union in 1989, numerous Americans started turning their consideration toward domestic policy (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
This pattern changed with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. From that point forward, foreign policy has come back to middle of everyone's attention, and lawmakers and hopefuls fervently foreign policy issues. An old maxim states that governmental issues stops at the water's edge, implying that the United States ought not to let political debate impact foreign policy. In actuality, however, divided governmental issues have an extraordinary effect on foreign policy (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
Since the end of World War II, the United States has driven the path in making various worldwide establishments that administer universal trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the biggest and most capable of these establishments. It looks to advance free trade among part countries by diminishing or dispensing with domestic appropriations and defensive levies. WTO individuals must consent to maintain the association's trade regulations, and all the world's nations are spoken to in the participation (Doug and Cox, 2012).
The overseeing assemblage of the WTO has the power to rebuff any part express that disregards these standards. Numerous American workers accept that such associations damage American industry and lead to outsourcing, exchanging employments once accessible to American specialists to laborers in different nations. Defenders of free trade including the American government nonetheless, contend that the profits of free trade far exceed the expenses in light of the fact that free trade brings down the cost of shopper products and permits Americans to buy more with their cash (Doug and Cox, 2012).
The United States has dependably been one of the real defenders of universal human rights and has censured numerous creating nations far and wide for mishandling those rights. President

Jimmy Carter even made humanitarianism a noteworthy occupant of his foreign policy in the late

1970s (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
Americans and foreign policymakers alike are isolated on whether the United States ought to make humanitarianism a more formal part of its foreign policy. Defenders contend that the United States ought to advance human rights as the alleged pioneer of the free world and as the nation with the most assets to help other people. Others, nonetheless, contend that advancing human rights and sending troops on humane missions accomplishes nothing substantial for the United States and could prompt inefficient employments of assets and the unnecessary loss of American lives (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
The United States has endeavored to keep different nations from obtaining and creating atomic weapons. The United States stresses that maverick states may utilize atomic innovation recklessly to attack their foes without thinking about the worldwide repercussions. In 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty attempted to stop the spread of atomic weapons. At the time, just five states had atomic weapons: the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China, all of which had a lasting seat on the United Nations Security Council. About every nation on the planet marked the settlement, in this way concurring not to look for or spread atomic weapons (Bailey, 2009).
Notwithstanding the assentions, in any case, a couple of states have still procured or created atomic weapons, including India, Pakistan, and, most as of late, North Korea. Most foreign policy investigators accept that Israel likewise has atomic weapons, despite the fact that Israel declines to uncover whether this is valid. Iran is right now looking to secure atomic innovation, apparently to be utilized just for electrical force, despite the fact that few world pioneers accept this case (Lieber and Robert, 2008).
Moreover, how to deal with terrorism is always an essential part of the United States foreign policy. Nonetheless, terrorism has been utilized by gatherings of all ideological and political perspectives, from the liberal Red Brigades in Europe to the conservative terrorist Timothy McVeigh, who shelled a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1994 (Carlsnaes and Stefano, 2011). Various foreign and domestic terrorists have propelled attacks against American engages subsequent to the mid-1980s. In 1982, a suicide aircraft slaughtered 241 American military work force in Lebanon. A gathering of Islamic fundamentalists endeavored to decimate the World Trade Center in 1993, and al Qaeda attacked American government offices in Africa in 1998. Al Qaeda's staggering, composed attacks on September 11, 2001, incited officials in Washington to make fighting terrorism the central center of American foreign policy (Doug and Cox, 2012).
Utilizing traveler planes as weapons, nineteen terrorists harmed the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and pulverized the twin towers of the World Trade Center unpredictable in New York City, slaughtering about 3,000 individuals all the while. The terrorist system al Qaeda painstakingly arranged the attack to dissent American foreign policy in the Middle East (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
It has been mentioned that taking after the attack, President George W. Bush rallied the country to battle back against the terrorists capable. The United States effectively drove a coalition compel in an attack of Afghanistan, where the administering Taliban administration had protected and helped the center authority of al Qaeda, including Saudi banish Osama container Ladin. Bush also made the Department of Homeland Security to arrange endeavors at home to counteract future terrorist attacks (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
Bush's War on Terror expanded the extent of the American reaction from battling al Qaeda and different gatherings aim on attacking the United States to battling all terrorists as far and wide as possible. Since 2002, the United States has supported numerous wars on dread being battled by different governments in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. The United States has even sent military advisors to different nations. As a consequence of these wars, a couple of terrorists gatherings, including the Irish Republican Army, have willfully denied savagery (Lieber and Robert, 2008).
Numerous states far and wide have lived with the danger of terrorism for far more than the United States. Irish Republican Army terrorists oftentimes attacked English regular people in London in the 1980s, for instance, to dissent British control of Northern Ireland. Israel experiences continuous terrorist attacks as well: at one time from the Palestinian Liberation Organization and presently from Hamas, an Islamist terrorist association situated in Lebanon (Viotti and Paul, 2010).
In 2002, President Bush contended that the United States has the privilege to dispense with its foes before they attack American engages, a policy now known as the Bush Doctrine. Although past presidents had always accepted that the United States could guard itself by striking its adversaries initially, Bush was the first president to put that policy into impact when he approved the attack of Iraq in 2003 to keep tyrant Saddam Hussein from utilizing weapons of mass demolition against the United States and its allies. Various commentators, be that as it may, have challenged the Bush Doctrine, asserting that this generally unilateral policy has harmed American respectability abroad. Different commentators have battled that the Bush Doctrine has undermined America's capacity to scrutinize other forceful states (Carlsnaes and Stefano, 2011).
Environmentalism has taken focal point of the audience in foreign policy too. Numerous individuals around the globe have realized that some environmental issues require transnational arrangements, so they urge their political pioneers to achieve understandings more than a mixture of environmental matters. The most aggressive such assention is the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 arrangement marked to control global warming by lessening greenhouse gas discharges. Various states, on the other hand, including China and the United States, decline to confirm the Kyoto Protocol, asserting that it had been planned on broken science. It stays to be seen whether the arrangement can be powerful without American interest (Doug and Cox, 2012).
The significant thing that American foreign policy needs to get right in the close term to guarantee proceeded with financial development is to smother clash in the Pacific Rim. China is the one challenger to the U.S. made request that has the ability to upset that request. Uplifted strains between extraordinary powers in that locale would be terrible. But then, if 2014 is any evidence, this is a region where the United States and China seem to have arrived at a sensibly steady balance. Washington and Beijing barely concede to everything, except they concur on the enormous things, such as keeping up an open global economy, lessening the probability of a military meeting, and handling environmental change (Lieber and Robert, 2008).
After discussing all the above points regarding the foreign policy of united States, it is important to highlight that, a significant part of the foreign policy wrangle in the United States today spins around evaluations of the fundamental significance of American supremacy and globalization. Americanists, alleged in light of the fact that they accentuate American supremacy, see a world in which the United States can utilize its overwhelming force to get its route, paying little mind to what others need. They accept the United States must summon the will to go it alone if essential. Globalists stress globalization. They see a world that opposes unilateral U.S. arrangements and rather requires international participation. They caution against suspecting that America can go it alone (Bailey, 2009).
No doubt, the United States is today the main genuinely global force. Its military span whether ashore, adrift, or noticeable all around reaches out to each point on the globe. Its monetary ability energizes world trade and industry (Hastedt and Glenn, 2011). Its political and cultural appeal is extensive to the point that most international establishments reflect American engages. America's position on the planet is special no other nation in history has ever approached. Economically, the United States may not broaden its edge over its rivals, yet nor is it prone to fall behind. The U.S. economy has demonstrated itself at any rate as capable as its significant rivals in realizing the profit increases made conceivable by data innovation. In order to have a updated foreign policy it is very essential to keep utilizing innovative and creative methods to make the country flourish in all aspects. In addition to this, considering the position of united States it could be really hard t maintain a balanced position in the world affairs, however it can be observed that U.S has an overall effective foreign policy that would ultimately lead to an ‘American Empire’ (Viotti and Paul, 2010).

References

Bailey, C., 2009. The Modern American Presidency.. Kansas: University Press of Kansas..
Bailey, C., Cain, B., Peele, G. & Peters, B., 2006. Developments in American Politics 5.. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beach, Derek. Analyzing Foreign Policy. Basingstoke, Hampshire [U.K.]: Palgave Macmillan, 2012. Print.
Berg, M. & Geyer, M. H., 2002.. Two cultures of rights : the quest for inclusion and participation in modern America and Germany. Washington, D.C: German Historical Institute ; Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press.
Birch, A., 2002. Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. 2 ed. London: Routledge.
Borstelmann, T., 2003. The Cold War and the Color line.. London: Harvard University Press.
Carlsnaes, Walter, and Stefano Guzzini. Foreign Policy Analysis. London: SAGE, 2011. Print.
Cox, Michael, and Doug Stokes. US Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Hastedt, Glenn P. American Foreign Policy. Boston: Longman, 2011. Print.
Krenn, Michael L. Race And U.S. Foreign Policy From Colonial Times Through The Age Of Jackson. New York: Garland Pub., 1998. Print.
Lieber, Robert J. Foreign Policy. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2008. Print.
Viotti, Paul R. American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2010. Print.