1

U.S. FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR TO THE WAR IN IRAQ

MATERIAL FROM LARRY SABATO AND KAREN O’CONNOR, AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY Definition of Foreign Policy Foreign policy refers to actions the United States government takes on behalf of its national interests abroad to ensure the security and well-being of Americans and the strength and competitiveness of the U.S. economy. A secure group of citizens requires protection of recognized national boundaries, a strong economy, and a stable, orderly society. The Constitution The Constitution lays out the institutional framework for foreign an defense policy that is clearly a federal power, not a power of the states. The Framers intended to divide responsibility for foreign affairs between the president and Congress. The president was to be head of state, thus appointing and receiving ambassadors, signing treaties and representing the U.S. abroad. Congress was to fund the army and navy as well as declare war, while the president, as commander in chief –would actually wage the war. Congress had the power to regulate commerce and the president had authority to negotiate treaties that were then subject to the advice and consent of the Senate (two-thirds vote needed for approval). The president appoints key foreign policy and military officials as well as ambassadors, but again, the Senate must consent. Through the doctrines of implied and inherent powers, the president and Congress have exceeded these original grants of power in a number of ways. The Early History of U.S. Foreign and Defense Policy During the Revolutionary War, John Adams was directed by the Continental Congress to outline a plan for the new country’s foreign policy. Adams advocated free trade and the avoidance of political ties. The demands of war, however, made military aid from foreign states a necessity. France, who had struggle with Britain, gave the Americans aid. In 1778, France and the North American colonies signed a military alliance, the first and only military alliance until the twentieth century. In the early years of the republic, the U.S. was weak and on the margins of international affairs. The U. S. had geopolitics on its side, protected by large oceans, abundant resources, industrious people, and relatively friendly neighbors. The Framers, having led a revolution against Great Britain, were generally opposed

2

to alliances with European powers. They saw Europe as a bunch of petty squabbling principalities that had been at war for most of the last few hundred years. George Washington warned the country to avoid entangling alliances when he left office. Despite a brief alliance with France to help the U.S. win independence, the U.S. generally avoided alliances with Europe until the twentieth century. When the first Congress met in 1789, they authorized an army with a maximum strength of 840 men. Most of the nation's military strength came from state militias. Early tariff laws kept tariffs low to keep trade free from government interference. Foreign policy was not a primary concern.

The country entered into few treaties in the early years. In 1809, the United States entered into their first executive agreement (a government to government agreement that is binding only on the current administration). Despite that agreement, that attempted to end problems between the U.S. and Great Britain, the two nations were at war in 1812. The reasons for war included British impressments (seizure) of American sailors, British restrictions on neutral shipping, and British support of western Indian tribes against aggressive territorial expansion of American settlers. . After the war, the U.S. and Britain decided to try and settle future disputes through consultation. The next big milestone occurred in the 1820’s as Latin American countries began to declare their independence from European colonial powers. The U.S. under President Monroe announced that if any country attempted to re-colonize Latin America, or if Russia attempted to move on the western coast of America, the U.S. would respond with force. This became known as the Monroe Doctrine. The United States as an Emerging Power For years, the U.S. was concerned primarily with the Western hemisphere and with conquering the continent. Eventually, the country spanned from the Atlantic to the Pacific. During this period, the U.S. accumulated some territories in the Pacific Ocean, including Hawaii and other islands. As a result of the Spanish American War in 1898, the U.S. acquired Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Philippines, and hegemony over Cuba. The war also elevated the U.S. to the status of a world power. In 1899, the Philippines revolted over U.S. rule and three years of war left the country with 5,000 American and tens of thousands of Filipinos dead.

Trade Policy and Commerce Alexander Hamilton advocated protecting infant industries in 1791, while John Adams, in the 1776 Plan of Treaties, recommended trade reciprocity (this dualism continues today in American trade policy). Reciprocity meant that the United States would treat foreign countries the same way they were treated. So if "country A" allowed for tariffs, so would the U.S. in trade with that country. Tariffs grew and were a standard of American trade policy until the twentieth century. Interests Beyond the Western Hemisphere During the nineteenth century, the United States expanded dramatically taking land from Native Americans and buying territories from Russia, France, and Spain. By the end of the century, the U. S. spanned the entire continent. Often, this process of

3

expansion was called Manifest Destiny, arguing that the United States had a divine obligation to tame the continent and control its riches. While other countries were grabbing colonies overseas, the United States expanded in mostly contiguous areas.

The Roosevelt Corollary

In 1903, Teddy Roosevelt sent the navy to Panama to help it gain independence from Colombia. In 1904, the United States started building the Panama Canal (it opened in 1914). This was the beginning of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that stated it was the responsibility of the U.S. to assure stability in Latin America and the Caribbean. Under this doctrine, the U.S. sent military forces to Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Mexico, and elsewhere. This history of interventions has left a mark on U.S. relations with Latin America to this day. Many in that region still have animosity towards the heavy handedness of U.S. foreign policy. By the turn of the twentieth century, the U.S. was on its way to becoming a world power. World War I and the Interwar Years World War I broke out in Europe in 1914. The U.S. wanted to remain neutral, but was eventually forced into the war by the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. Troops and aid from the U.S. began to arrive in Europe as Britain and France were virtually exhausted. Over five million Americans served in WWI. The U.S. also provided huge loans to the allies and massive amounts of war material. Wilson hoped that an international organization would prevent additional wars, and in that vein, he advocated the League of Nations. However, the domestic politics of the U.S. were not ready for a permanent foreign policy role and the Senate defeated the treaty establishing the League. The U.S. returned to a policy of high tariffs and isolationism. The war had made the economy boom and the U.S. became the leading economic power in the world. Only the Great Depression and the rise of Adolf Hitler shook the U.S. out of its isolation and back onto the world stage. World War II In 1939, WWII began. The United States soon found that its grand strategy of isolationism, unilateralism, and strict neutrality failed to make the country secure and keep it out of war. In December 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and Germany declared war on the U.S.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt quickly mobilized the country for war. Defense spending helped shake off the lingering Great Depression. Lend-Lease helped provide war material to the Allies and helped American businesses. Even before the end of the war, FDR and the allies created the United Nations to guarantee the security of member nations and promote economic prosperity around the globe. The five great powers--U.S., Soviet Union, China, France, and Great Britain--were to have seats on the Security Council and any of them had veto power

4

over UN actions.

As the war ended, the allies also created new international economic organizations to promote trade and economic growth. No one wanted to repeat the mistakes made after WWI that led to the Great Depression and a second world war. Among the institutions the allies created were the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. These organizations would regulate exchange rates, provide funds to rebuild war-torn economies, and lower trade barriers. These new institutions represented a shift in American strategy from isolation and unilateral action to engagement and multilateral action.

The Cold War and Containment: 1947-1969 During WWII, the United States was allied with Great Britain and the Soviet Union. As the war was ending, cracks had already become visible in the relations between western allies and the USSR. Joseph Stalin, leader of the USSR, attempted to encourage the spread of communism through eastern and central Europe and into the Balkans. When he got to Greece and Turkey, the U.S. and Great Britain took notice. At Yalta, given that the Red Army had liberated Eastern Europe, western powers did little when they became fully communist. But Greece and Turkey were a different story. The British declared that they could not afford to defend these countries and asked the U.S. to do it. President Truman responded with the Truman Doctrine to contain the expansion of communism. This was the beginning of a bipartisan consensus in foreign affairs to resist communism and oppose the Soviet Union. This consensus lasted until the late 1980’s. Truman also got Congress to pass the European Recovery Program, or the Marshall Plan, to rebuild Europe with huge infusions of American aid. The idea was to prevent communism by making strong vibrant economies in Western Europe. For the first time, the U.S. joined a political and military alliance in peacetime, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Soon, Truman was confronted with a new crisis in Asia. After WWII, Korea had been partitioned into two zones, with one in the North occupied by the Soviet Union and the other in the South by U.S. troops. The Marshall Plan, NATO, and Korea are examples of the strategy of containment. The argument was that the U.S. and its allies had to stop communism and deter it at every opportunity. If the allies could not do that it was believed that the system would collapse. In practice, this meant limiting trade (particularly of technology) and surrounding the USSR with military forces and American allies. The strategy was criticized from the left as too hostile, and from the right as too soft.

The post-WWII era was also the nuclear era. Until 1949, the U.S. had a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Then, the Soviet Union exploded their bomb and the race was on. After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, in which the USSR attempted to station nuclear missiles in Cuba, ninety miles from U.S. soil, both sides began to look for ways to limit the nuclear and military tension between the two countries. The U.S. began to seek ways to control the growth of nuclear weapons through test ban and

5

nonproliferation treaties. Both sides also began to negotiate limits on the growth of their own arsenals and eventually arms control became arms reduction in the 1980s. Vietnam, 1961-1973 At the height of the Cold War, the United States entered what would prove to be its most damaging military intervention thus far. In the southeastern Asian country of Vietnam, nationalist forces from the north, led by Ho Chi Minh, had defeated French colonial forces at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. In Geneva, where international talks on Korea were proceeding, Vietnam was portioned into a communist north and a capitalist south, with the promise of elections in two years that could unify the country. The elections never materialized, as the struggle between the two Vietnams intensified. Determined to halt the spread of communism, the U.S. supported the corrupt capitalist regime in the south. Beginning early in the Kennedy administration, first hundreds and then thousands of U.S. military “advisors” were sent to South Vietnam. The American public saw little information about or discussion of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia, and policy makers were left to pursue their own course, which proved to be a mounting commitment of military personnel and equipment. Within a few weeks of each other in November 1963, both South Vietnamese Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem and President Kennedy were assassinated. Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency with public declarations of no desire to “widen” the war in Vietnam. Yet he convinced Congress to support a massive military buildup in Southeast Asia. On August 2, 1964, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was returning from an electronic espionage mission when North Vietnamese torpedo boats fired on it. The attack was repulsed. Rather than withdrawing U.S. ships from this danger zone, Johnson ordered another destroyer, the C. Turner Joy, to join the Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 4, both the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy reportedly came under attack by torpedo boats. There is considerable doubt about the second attack, as weather conditions were so bad and tensions aboard ship so high, that Johnson later quipped, “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.” But circumstantial evidence was all Johnson needed for ordering reprisals against North Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed by Congress in August 1964, provided President Johnson with broad legal authority to combat North Vietnamese aggression.

In July 1965, Lyndon Johnson chose to Americanize the war by increasing U.S. combat strength in Vietnam from 75,000 to 125,000, with additional U.S. forces to be sent when requested by field commander General William Westmoreland. As Johnson wrote in his memoirs, “now we are committed to major combat in Vietnam. We had determined not to let that country fall under Communist rule as long as we could prevent it.” In December 2005, the National Security Administration (NSA) released hundreds of pages of previously classified top-secret documents that leave little doubt that intelligence was deliberately skewed in the 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident.

6

By the early 1970’s, the American military was mired in the Asian jungles, at a cost of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. The U.S. national interest in the region was no longer clear, and the antiwar movement grew until the United States was completely split on the issue. Finally, a treaty with the North Vietnamese government allowed the United States to withdraw in 1973. The U.S. got involved in Vietnam for several reasons: to bailout the French colonial power, to promote "democracy," and most of all to contain communism. However, the U.S. understanding of the conflict was highly flawed. The South Vietnamese were not "democrats," the North Vietnamese were not controlled from Moscow and Beijing, and the war was mostly about nationalism and independence. By the time the U.S. extracted itself from Vietnam in 1973, there were 57,000 American dead and 300,000 casualties. Plus, the lying and deceit of the military and the Johnson administration had eroded trust in government. The war, and wars in general, became hugely unpopular, and many began to see limits to the ability of the U.S. to project power in the world. The experience had a huge impact and continues to have an impact today. The credibility of much of the United States’ foreign policy apparatus was undercut. The fiasco also led many citizens and leaders to question the role and effectiveness of U.S. foreign intervention. This debate continues today. Due in part to the Vietnam War, American economic power declined in the 1960s. The economies of Europe and Japan rose following the destruction of their economies in WWII. Marshall Plan investments, U.S. subsidies and trade preferences, and lots of hard work by the people and governments of those countries led to incredible economic growth, particularly in Germany and Japan. Since their economies had been destroyed, they had no aging machinery, recalcitrant workers, or problem infrastructure. In addition, American savings and investment since WWII had plummeted and massive consumerism had taken hold. This limited the capital available for retooling and rebuilding infrastructure. The American global superpower was also a little complacent.

Detente and Human Rights, 1969-1981 President Nixon announced that the time for confrontation was over and a new era of negotiation was in order in 1969. This new era was called detente. This period was characterized by summit meetings of U.S. and Soviet leaders and arms control agreements.

The culmination of detente was the achievement of the Helsinki Accords in 1975. The heads of government of virtually every European state, Canada, and the United States met in Finland. The Soviets hoped that Helsinki would recognize their control of Eastern Europe and other conquered territories and the western powers wanted the USSR to agree to human rights and other protections for all citizens. Both got what they wanted. The inviolability of borders was made an important point in international law and human rights. Until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification agreement in Germany, the Helsinki Accords were as close as we came to a European peace from WWII.

7

In 1977, Jimmy Carter expressed his desire to make human rights the cornerstone of his foreign policy. In 1979, the Iranian hostage crisis erupted and undermined Carter's domestic support. The Republicans charged that Carter and the Democrats had made America weak. Detente finally died when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Carter also promulgated the Carter Doctrine-that the Persian Gulf was an area of vital U.S. interest and the U.S. would fight to maintain its interests there. Containment Revisited and Renewed, 1981-1989 When Ronald Reagan was elected, U.S.-Soviet relations deteriorated rapidly. He called the USSR an evil empire, stepped up defense spending, announced an activist foreign policy designed, once again, to contain Soviet expansion, and began funding the Afghan opposition. By 1983, relations were at their worst since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets had shot down a Korean passenger airplane, the U.S. had invaded or intervened in numerous Latin American and Caribbean countries with pro-Soviet leanings, NATO deployed intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe, and the U.S. and Soviets were in a very hot proxy war in Afghanistan. The next year, things began to get better. By 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary of the USSR Communist Party. Gorbachev announced a number of new reforms ranging from more openness (glasnost) and economic reforms (perestroika) to new thinking in foreign policy that renounced class struggle and the idea of confrontation as the sole way of dealing with other countries. Gorbachev and Reagan met at several summits. Gorbachev, in desperate need of reallocating his country's resources from military to domestic uses, kept up his spate of reforms and attempts at reducing tension. By the third summit meeting, the leaders seemed to have hit a recipe for dealing with each other, and they signed an agreement to get rid of all intermediate range nuclear forces in Europe. Searching for a New International Order, 1989-2001 George Bush came to power in 1989 promising to follow in Reagan's footsteps, but the world was changing fast. The Iron Curtain fell when Eastern Europe rebelled in 1989, and the USSR let them go. Communism was also rapidly collapsing in the Soviet Union itself. These events caught the administration unaware. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S. led a U.N.-approved operation to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The operation was lauded as a great success and President Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union was wracked by a coup in August 1991 and then the collapse of the USSR. The Cold War and Communism were gone. President Clinton inherited a much different world order than his predecessor. He followed policies of engagement, not isolation. And Clinton pursued more multilateral approaches to world problems than previous administrations. Clarity was seriously lacking though. Without the Communist threat and the doctrine of containment, the U.S. government did not when and how to intervene and when to hang back. When George W. Bush became president, these issues had still not been resolved.

8

Bush placed a high priority, initially, on Mexico and Latin America. His first foreign visit was to Mexico in a highly symbolic gesture to that country

The War On Terrorism: 2001 to Present But whatever plans he might have had, Bush's foreign and military policy agenda were overcome by events. The al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, forced the government to respond to that threat and other potential threats. Almost 3,000 people died in the attacks on New York's World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and in the plane crash in Pennsylvania that didn't reach its target due to the heroism of its passengers. Thousands had their lives disrupted by the attacks and the economy suffered a major setback that had worldwide repercussions. Bush declared a war on terrorism. He proposed a new Office of Homeland Security and took the country to war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan that had harbored and protected al-Qaeda. By the end of 2001, the Taliban were defeated and 17 countries had troops in Afghanistan. Many more had pledged aid to rebuild the country shattered by the Soviet invasion, then civil war, then the Taliban rule, and finally the war on terrorism. As the Bush administration confronted the aftermath of 9-11, the policies of the United States changed from the reactive strategies of containment and deterrence to a more proactive policy of preemptive military action. In March 2003, Bush launched a war in Iraq in the belief that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). WMD’s are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. The administration argued that Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists and needed regime change. The United Nations did not approve of the invasion. Regime change came quickly. Saddam Hussein was overthrown and he was captured in December 2003. Coalition forces found no evidence of WMD. The Bush administration then changed its justification for the war to the goal of promoting democracy and remaking the Middle East. Bush declared "mission accomplished." But violence escalated. By the end of June 2007, more than 3,585 American soldiers had died. In addition, Iraq had elected a new government but the insurgency, which became a civil war continued. In 2007, Bush responded with a “surge” in troop levels in an effort to win the conflict. The September 11th attacks brought about a change in foreign and defense policy priorities. Defense of the homeland and pursuing a global war on terror became the dominant goals of U.S. foreign policy. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND FOREIGN POLICY-MAKING The Constitution divides the powers in foreign policy just as it divides powers throughout the government system. However, the president has been preeminent in foreign affairs and has gotten even more powerful in recent years.

The Executive Branch Presidential supremacy in foreign relations dates back to Alexander Hamilton who argued that foreign policy was different than domestic policy in several ways. Foreign policy requires:

Monroe Doctrine; December 2 1823 …[T]he occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights

and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be

Of events in that quarter of the globe [Europe], with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers.

The political system of the allied powers [in Europe] is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted.

We owe it, therefore, to candor [honesty] and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere [i.e. Latin America] as dangerous to our peace and safety.

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition [interference] for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation [showing] of an unfriendly disposition [feeling] toward the United States.

In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered [stuck], and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable [necessary] to their security…

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto [in fact] as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none…

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either [American] continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . .

Reluctant Colossus:America Enters the Age of Imperialism

TRB-44 Choices for the 21st Century Education ProgramWatson Institute for International Studies, Brown University

America Enters the Age of ImperialismIssues Toolbox

Imperialism: The policy of extending the rule ofa nation over foreign countries as well asacquiring colonies and dependencies.

Supporters of imperialism by the United Statesused several different arguments to advocatetheir point of view. Drawing on Darwiniantheory, some suggested that there was a strugglebetween nations and people in which only thefittest would survive. They believed that theAnglo-Saxon race and particularly Americanswere best-suited to spread their religious,cultural, and civic values throughout the world.

Another school of thought led by naval CaptainAlfred Thayer Mahan stressed the importanceof naval power for the United States’ physicaland economic security. This meant that theUnited States would need to acquire andmaintain naval bases around the globe.

Senator Alfred J. Beveridge of Indiana stressedthe economic benefits of imperialism andbelieved that Americans were obligated togovern others who were not able to governthemselves.

Nationalism: A strong devotion and loyalty tothe interest of one’s country and people. Strongnationalist feelings were behind the U.S.decision to go to war with Spain, as well as theFilipino war of independence and the revolutionin Cuba.

Sovereignty: The freedom of a state to governitself without outside interference. The U.S.Congress stated that it did not want to establishsovereignty in Cuba. However, eventually theUnited States forced Cuba to accept U.S. controlover its economy and foreign policy in exchangefor independence.

Self-determination: The right of a people togovern their own affairs. The peoples of Cubaand the Philippines were determined to exerciseself-determination first against Spain and thenagainst the United States. At the end of thenineteenth century many small nationschallenged the rule of empires and claimed aright of self-determination.

www.choices.edu ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■

The U.S. Role in a Changing World 1

On September 11, 2001, members of the al Qaeda terrorist group crashed passenger

jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Thousands died. Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, chose this way to express his hatred of the United States and its role in world affairs.

In early 2009, the Czech Republic, a for-mer communist state, became president of the twenty-seven member European Union, the largest international capitalist network in the world. Indeed, in the last few years several states and satellites of the former communist-ruled Soviet Union have become members of the European Union, exemplifying the spread of Western economic and political structures to more and more countries around the globe.

It is clear that not all the peoples and governments of the world have entered the twenty-first century on the same path. On the one hand, much of the planet seems increas-ingly connected by a web of trade, technology, and common political values. In this age of globalization, traditional dividing lines based on borders and cultures have blurred. On the other hand, the problems that have haunted humanity for hundreds of years have not disappeared. Violence continues to erupt over questions of land, power, and identity. Billions of people live in grinding poverty. Tyranni-cal governments use fear and intimidation to maintain their authority. Today the United States finds itself a part of this complex envi-ronment where a host of social and political systems mingle and clash.

From the first days of the republic, U.S. citizens have debated how to balance their

priorities at home with their involvement in international affairs. In his farewell address of 1796, President George Washington warned his fellow citizens to “steer clear of perma-nent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Yet Washington also recognized that the United States would need to be connected to the larger world in order to prosper.

Today U.S. citizens wrestle with the task of balancing domestic needs and international relationships. The world also presents an ar-ray of economic, political, cultural, and social concerns and problems. Consensus about how to address these problems is hard to achieve in a pluralistic society. Nevertheless, a healthy democracy requires debate and discussion about the values and policies that shape the United States and its place in the world.

The readings in this text discuss the forces that shape the U.S. role in the world. Part I reviews three critical turning points in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Part II examines several pressing issues facing the United States and the world today: economy, human health and the environment, international relations, and culture and values. Part III explores se-curity concerns of the United States and how they connect to the issues presented in Part II.

After the readings, you will consider four distinct alternatives for the U.S. role in the world. Finally, you will be asked to create an option—or Future—that reflects your own beliefs and opinions about where U.S. policy should be heading. You will need to weigh the risks and trade-offs of whatever you decide.

Introduction: A Changing World

■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ www.choices.edu

The U.S. Role in a Changing World2

Part I: Considering the United States’ Changing Role

Over the past two centuries, the United States has evolved into a country far more

sophisticated and influential than George Washington could have possibly imagined. Time and again, the people of the United States have been compelled to rethink the U.S. role in the world. Changes in the United States—unmatched economic growth, ever-widening global power, waves of immigration, and startling social transformations—have caused generations of U.S. citizens to wrestle with conflicting foreign policy ideas. Citizens have argued about what interests and values, if any, are at stake outside the country, and how the United States should respond. They have disagreed about whether the major source of U.S. influence in the world should be its moral example or its active involvement.

This section explores three historical turning points in U.S. foreign policy. At each of these junctures urgent questions emerged. U.S. citizens debated alternative proposals and made critical decisions. As you examine each of the historical events, focus on the policy choices put forward and the values they represent. Identify the most influential hopes and fears framing the debate. Finally, ask yourself which lessons from the past, if any, you believe should be applied to U.S. foreign policy today.

The Spanish-American War: Coming to Grips with Empire

As the nineteenth century came to a close, the United States found itself entering a world it had cautiously avoided. In its first century as a nation the country expanded westward across the continent and began to emerge as a leading economic power. Shielded by two great oceans, the United States tried to insulate itself from the conflicts of the Old World. As the United States changed and its economic strength grew, so did expectations about U.S. foreign policy. Many were beginning to be-lieve that the United States should take a more active role in world affairs. The Caribbean

region, particularly the island of Cuba, held special interest.

Why did the Cuban struggle for independence attract U.S. attention?

The Caribbean drew U.S. attention for a number of reasons. First, geography brought the people of the United States and the Ca-ribbean together as neighbors. Cuba is only ninety miles away from the southern tip of Florida. As the importance of naval power increased in the 1800s, many U.S. leaders be-came convinced that the United States needed to control the Caribbean to protect its own shores and shipping routes.

Second, the United States and the Carib-bean region were linked economically. U.S. companies invested heavily in the sugar, cof-fee, and banana plantations of the Caribbean, especially as plans to build a canal across the isthmus of Central America advanced in the late 1800s.

Finally, the Cuban people’s struggle for independence attracted widespread U.S. sym-pathy. Since the sixteenth century, Cuba had been ruled by Spain. Most U.S. citizens in the 1800s resented the colonial powers of Europe, and were particularly outraged by Spain’s bru-tal attempts to crush the Cuban independence movement. In 1898, the United States declared war on Spain.

What questions arose in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War?

The Spanish-American War lasted only four months and ended with a decisive U.S. victory. But military triumph raised new ques-tions for the United States. As a result of the war, the fate of Spain’s colonial empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific rested in U.S. hands. These areas included not only Cuba and Puerto Rico, but also the distant islands of the Philippines and Guam.

Suddenly, U.S. citizens were faced with a critical choice. Since the war of indepen-

www.choices.edu ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■

The U.S. Role in a Changing World 3

dence against Britain, Americans considered their country to be a foe of imperialism. Most viewed the Spanish-American War as a struggle against the forces of European colonialism. But while opposition to imperi-alism was strong, so was support for a more prominent U.S. presence in world affairs. A new generation of policy makers felt that the United States was obliged to establish an overseas empire as British, French, and other European powers had done before them. They argued that U.S. control over the colonies of Spain would serve military and commercial interests, and also allow the United States to promote its democratic values in foreign lands.

“Americans must now look outward. The growing production of the country demands it. An increasing volume of public sentiment demands it. The position of the United States, between the two Old Worlds [Asia and Europe] and the two great oceans, makes the same claim.”

—Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, 1890

Many leading public figures, including writer Mark Twain and Democratic presi-dential candidate William Jennings Bryan, opposed U.S. rule over Spain’s colonies, but President William McKinley led the campaign for annexation of the Spanish possessions. He and his supporters argued that the United States had a responsibility to advance its ide-als.

Why did the United States lose its appetite for empire?

In 1899, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved the treaty sought by McKinley. But the annexation of Spain’s colonies did not put an end to debate over the U.S. role in the world. In the Philippines, U.S. troops fought to suppress Filipino nationalists from 1899 to 1902. The conflict resulted in the deaths of forty-two hundred U.S. soldiers and one hundred to two hundred thousand Filipinos. It also spurred protest at home. In both Cuba and the United States, advocates

of full independence for Cuba organized demonstrations against measures the U.S. government took to limit self-rule.

“We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism.... We insist that the subjugation of any people is ‘criminal aggression’ and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government.”

—Platform of the Anti-Imperialist League, 1898

Despite the lack of public support for im-perial expansion, the United States established a protectorate over Panama in 1903 to pave the way for building the Panama Canal, and acquired several small Pacific island groups after World War I. In the Philippines, U.S. of-ficials turned over much of the responsibility for governing the islands to Filipinos. In 1946, the Philippines gained full independence.

In the Caribbean as well, the United States wanted to avoid the administrative costs and military commitment associated with control-ling an empire. Rather, the chief goal of U.S. policy in the region was to safeguard U.S. business and security interests. U.S. leaders

Uncle Sam baby-sits his charges.

Det

roit

New

s, 1

898.

■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ www.choices.edu

The U.S. Role in a Changing World4

retained the right to oversee Cuba’s economic policies and foreign relations until 1934.

World War I: Making the World Safe for Democracy

When war broke out in Europe in Au-gust 1914, the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens felt that the United States should stay out of the fighting. President Woodrow Wilson, who mistrusted the great powers of Europe, shared this view. He established a policy of strict neutrality to avoid U.S. involvement in the war. Wilson believed that the United States should occupy a special place in the world as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and justice. In 1914, this belief lay at the foundation of his policy on neutrality. In April 1917, Wilson evoked the same ideals when he called on Congress to declare war against Germany.

How did the Allied victory open new opportunities in international relations?

Like the Spanish-American War, World War I was a military success for the United States. Fresh U.S. troops helped tip the bal-ance in Europe against Germany, leading to an Allied victory in 1918. The United States’ vital role in the defeat of Germany brought with it new questions about the country’s role in the post-war world.

Wilson’s peace proposal, known as the Fourteen Points, called for international cooperation to maintain world peace. Wil-son envisioned an association of nations that would protect the political independence and territorial integrity of both large and small states. He imagined that the United States would join this proposed League of Nations and play a prominent part in safeguarding the peace of the new international order. A nation-al debate about whether to join ensued with President Wilson at its center. Wilson found that he had underestimated the concerns that U.S. citizens had about his ideas for interna-tional cooperation.

“For the first time in history the counsels of mankind are to be drawn

together and concerted for the purpose of defending the rights and improving the conditions of working people—men, women, and children—all over the world. Such a thing as that was never dreamed of before, and what you are asked to discuss in discussing the League of Nations is the matter of seeing that this thing is not interfered with. There is no other way to do it than by a universal League of Nations....”

—Woodrow Wilson, September 1919

Why did the Senate oppose Wilson’s proposals?

The national debate began with consid-eration of the League of Nations in the U.S. Senate. Republican senators, the leading op-ponents of Wilson’s proposals, argued that the treaty would require League members to come to the defense of any member under attack. They were concerned that the United States might be compelled to fight to preserve the borders of a French colony in Africa or protect British imperial interests in India.

“I am anxious as any human being can be to have the United States render every possible service to the civilization and the peace of mankind, but I am certain we can do it best by not putting ourselves in leading strings or subjecting our policies and our sovereignty to other nations.” —Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, August 1919

Rather than negotiate with his opponents in the Senate, Wilson decided to take his case to the people, hoping to rally public opinion behind his vision for U.S. foreign policy. In September 1919, he traveled eight thousand miles by rail, giving forty speeches in twenty-nine cities during the course of a three-week speaking tour. Wilson’s pleas were commu-nicated nationally through the twenty-one journalists who traveled with him on the train and ran daily stories on the trip. The pace

www.choices.edu ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■

The U.S. Role in a Changing World 5

of the trip coupled with preexisting medical problems proved to be too much for Wilson physically. On September 25, Wilson gave his last speech before collapsing from physical exhaustion. Upon his return to Washington, a crippling stroke silenced Wilson’s voice. Partially paralyzed, the president in 1920 watched as the Senate rejected U.S. member-ship in the League of Nations by a vote of 38-53, far short of the two-thirds majority needed to approve the treaty. One of the trea-ty’s foes, Republican Warren G. Harding, went on to win the 1920 presidential election by pledging to return the country to “normalcy.”

What were U.S. attitudes toward foreign affairs in the 1920s and 1930s?

As the prosperity of the 1920s gave way to the depression of the 1930s, many U.S. citizens sought to shield their country from the turmoil in Europe. The establishment of communism in the Soviet Union and the emer-

gence of fascism in Europe added to the desire to steer clear of troubles overseas.

The League of Nations proved weak and ineffective without U.S. involvement. In the 1930s, the League failed to stop Japanese, Italian, and German aggression. The overseas conflicts from which U.S. citizens hoped to isolate themselves were becoming a mounting threat to world peace.

When fighting broke out in Europe in September 1939, most in the United States sympathized with Britain and France in their struggle against Nazi Germany, but viewed the war as a European matter. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 instantly changed their attitudes. The United States entered World War II with firm resolve and mobilized its vast resources. By 1945, the Al-lies were victorious in Europe and the Pacific.

Post-World War II: Confronting the Soviet Challenge

When World War II ended in 1945, the United States stood unrivaled as the stron-gest nation on earth. Unlike the combatants of Europe and Asia, the United States had escaped the devastation of war. U.S. industry reached new levels of productivity during the war years, supplying much of the equipment for the Allied victory. Moreover, in 1945 the United States was the only country to possess nuclear weapons.

For many in the United States, peace represented an opportunity to withdraw again from the center stage of world affairs. With Japan’s surrender in August 1945, President Harry S. Truman moved quickly to bring U.S. troops home and to allow the country’s twelve million soldiers to return to civilian life. By 1947, the government had cut the military to 1.4 million personnel.

But even as U.S. citizens were enjoying the benefits of peace, many U.S. policy makers recognized that World War II had fundamen-tally changed the international order. Britain, after dominating much of the globe for two centuries, was no longer able to maintain

“We Told You It Wouldn’t Work!”

Jay

N. D

arlin

g. T

he D

es M

oine

s Re

gist

er, c

. 192

0.

■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ www.choices.edu

The U.S. Role in a Changing World6

its vast empire. Likewise, the other leading European powers—France, Germany, and Italy—were in no position to assert themselves internationally. Most importantly, the war strengthened the hand of the Soviet Union.

In defeating Nazi Germany, Soviet forces had swept over Eastern Europe. After the war, they remained in place and provided the mus-cle behind Moscow’s political control of the region. At the same time, the Soviets sought to extend their influence to Iran, Turkey, and Greece. In 1946, Winston Churchill, the British prime minister during the war, said that the Soviets had cut off Eastern Europe from its western neighbors by drawing an “iron cur-tain” across the continent.

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in

the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in some cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.”

—Winston Churchill, 1946

What role did the United States take in postwar Europe?

Discussion about how the United States fit into the new international order gained the attention of the U.S. public in 1947 and 1948. In March 1947, President Truman unveiled an extensive aid package for Greece and Turkey. In what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine, he pledged U.S. support for governments everywhere fighting against communist uprisings.

At the same time, U.S. strategists were designing a far-reaching economic assistance effort to rebuild Europe. Known as the Mar-shall Plan, the foreign aid program called for the United States to spend billions of dollars on reconstruction in Europe. The Marshall Plan was based on the belief that the United States should try to contain the expansion of

“But what part shall the meek inherit?”

Soviet leader Stalin walks off with the world.

Cha

rles

G. W

erne

r in

The

Indi

anap

olis

Sta

r, 19

49.

www.choices.edu ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■

The U.S. Role in a Changing World 7

Soviet communism and that the best way to do so would be the rehabilitation of the economic structure of Europe.

“It has become obvious during recent months that this visible destruction was probably less serious than the dislocation of the entire fabric of European economy.... It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.”

—Secretary of State George Marshall, June 1947

Many leading policy makers in the ad-ministration of President Truman had come to view conflict with the Soviet Union as inevitable. They argued that the United States should stand firm against Soviet ambition. Reconstruction in Europe, they argued, would be a significant part of this effort. Truman was particularly concerned that the Soviets would promote the spread of communism in the war-ravaged countries of western and southern Europe.

Congress considered the Marshall Plan for ten months. At the same time, hundreds of town hall meetings convened across the coun-try to weigh the future of U.S. foreign policy. Truman’s approach encountered opposition from a variety of perspectives. Traditional conservatives feared that making new com-mitments abroad would inflate the budget and give the military too much power. Meanwhile, many liberals believed that the Marshall Plan would divide Europe into two hostile camps and would undermine the cooperative mission of the newly formed United Nations (UN).

How did the United States respond to the Soviet threat?

Criticism of Truman’s policies was under-cut by events. In 1948, the Soviets sponsored a coup to topple the government in Czechoslo-vakia and imposed a blockade of West Berlin

to force the Allies out of the city. Although many in the United States were wary of be-coming entangled in international affairs, they also remembered how Nazi Germany expand-ed its power in the 1930s through threats and intimidation while the United States watched from the sidelines. They believed that the experience of the 1930s justified a determined stance against Soviet communism.

“It is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” —U.S. Diplomat George Kennan, July 1947

By the end of the 1940s, the United States had set a course for an active role in interna-tional affairs. The declaration of the Truman Doctrine and the passage of the Marshall Plan in 1948 signaled that the United States was willing to make a long-term investment in the future of Europe. Equally important was the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organi-zation (NATO) in 1949. Under the provisions of NATO, the United States, Canada, and ten countries of Western Europe pledged to come to one another’s defense if any member were attacked.

Why did the containment of Soviet expansion in Europe deepen into a global contest?

At the time, most supporters of Truman’s policies imagined that the division of Europe into U.S. and Soviet spheres would last no more than ten or fifteen years. Instead, the Cold War between Washington and Moscow deepened in the 1950s, extended to virtually every area of the globe, and endured for nearly half a century.

In September 1949, the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb. The next month, com-munists led by Mao Zedong won control of mainland China and joined Moscow in press-ing for the spread of communism worldwide. In June 1950, communist North Korean forces

■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ www.choices.edu

The U.S. Role in a Changing World8

invaded South Korea, drawing the United States and the UN into a three-year conflict that ended in a stalemate. By the mid-1950s, U.S. leaders had reluctantly accepted the Sovi-et sphere of influence behind the Iron Curtain.

Moscow’s development of nuclear weap-ons forced U.S. defense planners to devise a new national security strategy to counter the Soviet threat. Presidents Truman and Eisen-hower bolstered the U.S. presence in Western Europe to deter Soviet aggression. The United States increased its conventional, or non-nuclear, forces. U.S. policy makers also hoped to maintain their head start in the arms race.

In Part I, you have read about three critical turning points in the U.S. relationship to the world in the last century. The

challenge for U.S. citizens today is to define the role that the nation will have in the twenty-first century. As you read the next two sections on changes in the global environment and U.S. security, think about the turning points of the past. How were ordinary U.S. citizens involved in the foreign policy decisions of the last century, and how might they be involved today? Will the same factors involved in the twentieth century influence the decisions of the twenty-first? Have U.S. values changed? As you read the following sections, use your knowledge of previous turning points to evaluate the choices available for the United States today.

In 1947, Truman ordered that four hundred nuclear weapons be ready by 1953. Under Eisenhower, the doctrine of “massive retali-ation” committed the United States to use nuclear weapons to counter a Soviet attack on Western Europe. The purpose of the policy was to deter an attack from ever taking place. This policy of deterrence would form the cor-nerstone of U.S. security policy for nearly fifty years. The end of the Cold War in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 reduced the threat of nuclear war and marked the beginning of new era in international rela-tions.

www.choices.edu ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■

The U.S. Role in a Changing World

Day One 5TRB

Name:______________________________________________

Study Guide—Part I

1. Give three reasons why U.S. citizens became interested in the Cuban struggle for independence.

a.

b.

c.

2. Name the new territories the United States controlled following the Spanish-American War.

a. c.

b. d.

3. Summarize the arguments supporting and opposing imperialism at the start of the twentieth cen-tury.

Supporting:

Opposing:

4. Why did the Senate oppose U.S. membership in League of Nations after World War I?

5. Why did many U.S. citizens wish to insulate themselves from Europe in the 1920s and 30s?

■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ www.choices.edu

The U.S. Role in a Changing WorldDay One6

TRB

6. When U.S. policy makers considered the situation in Europe after World War II, they determined that the United States could not isolate itself from world affairs. What was the situation in these countries that led them to think this?

a. Britain:

b. France, Germany, Italy:

c. Soviet Union:

7. What was the “iron curtain” Churchill referred to?

8. Give an example of U.S. policy to “contain” the Soviets.

9. Define “deterrence” and offer an example of U.S. policy that attempted to “deter” the Soviets.

Name:______________________________________________

www.choices.edu ■ watson institute for international studies, Brown university ■ choices for the 21st century education Program ■

The U.S. Role in a Changing World

Day One 7TRB

Advanced Study Guide—Part I

1. For each of the three turning points described in the readings, provide evidence that U.S. citizens debated and discussed the policies under consideration. Were ordinary citizens more involved at some points than others?

a. “Coming to Grips with Empire”:

b. “Making the World Safe for Democracy”:

c. “Confronting the Soviet Challenge”:

2. Identify the values that contributed to the decisions made during these turning points. You might consider values such as economic prosperity, peace, safety, cooperation, justice, power, and so on.

a. “Coming to Grips with Empire”:

b. “Making the World Safe for Democracy”:

c. “Confronting the Soviet Challenge”:

3. Is the United States at a turning point today? Explain and support your opinion.

Name:______________________________________________