Foreign relations of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- For a history, see Timeline of United States diplomatic history
- For the published diplomatic papers, see The Foreign Relations of the United States
The foreign relations of the United States are marked by the country's large economy, well-funded military, and notable political influence. According to estimates given in the CIA World Factbook, the United States has the world's largest economy, the world's most well-funded military, and a large amount of political influence.<ref>The estimated GDP of all countries recognized by formally recognized by the United States for which data is available is here; the military expenditures for said countries is available here; and the political details are available on the main United States page here here.</ref>
The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States repeatedly mentioned and emphasized by government officials, are:
- Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad;
- Protecting allied nations of the United States from attack or invasion and creating mutually beneficial international defense arrangements and partnerships to ensure this;
- Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy in all regions of the world;
- Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them; and
- Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need.
All of these statements are the targets of many critcisms from various sources, some of which are listed below.
Contents |
[edit] Decision-making
The President negotiates treaties with foreign nations. The President is also Commander in Chief of the military, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces once they are deployed. The Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.
The Congress has the power to declare war, but the President has the ability to commit military troops to an area for 60 days without Congressional approval, though in all cases it has been granted afterwards. The Senate (one of the two houses of Congress) also holds the exclusive right to approve treaties made by the President. Congress is likewise responsible for passing bills that determine the general character and policies of United States foreign policy.
The third arm of government is the Supreme Court which has traditionally played a minimal role in foreign policy.
[edit] Brief history
During the American Revolution, the United States established relations with several European powers, convincing France, Spain, and the Netherlands to intervene in the war against Britain, a mutual enemy. In the period following, the U.S. oscillated between pro-French and pro-British policies. In general, the U.S. remained aloof from European disputes, focusing on territorial expansion in North America.
After the Spanish colonies in Latin America declared independence, the U.S. established the Monroe Doctrine, a policy of keeping European powers out of the Americas. U.S. expansionism led to war with Mexico and to diplomatic conflict with Britain over the Oregon Territory and with Spain over Florida and later Cuba. During the American Civil War, the U.S. accused Britain and France of supporting the Confederate States and trying to control Mexico, but after that, the U.S. was unchallenged in its home territory, except by Native Americans. Through the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, it strove to be the dominant influence in the Americas, trying to weaken European influence in Latin America and occasionally intervening to establish puppet governments in weak states.
As U.S. power grew, it began to look at interests farther abroad, particularly in the pursuit of trade. It occupied territories in the Pacific, such as Hawaii and the Philippines, demanded the opening of Japan to trade, and competed with other powers for influence in China. During World War I, the United States was among the victorious Allies, after which it returned to more isolationist policies. Image:MerkelBushWashington1.jpg The United States entered World War II in 1941, again on the Allied side, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war against the U.S. by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After the war, it was a major player in the establishment of the United Nations and became one of five permanent members of the Security Council.
During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy sought to limit the influence of the Soviet Union around the world (called "containment"), leading to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the overthrow of at least one democratic government, and diplomatic actions like the opening of China and establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It also sought to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Britain as a global power, leading international economic organizations such as the WTO and GATT. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. had military and economic interests in every region of the globe. In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States invaded Panama, partly based on its re-declaration of the "War on Drugs." In the 1980's the U.S. declared a "war on terror" and operated campaigns in Central America which in 1986 led to the World Court conviction of international terrorism by the US against Nicaragua.[citation needed] In 1991, the United States organized and led the Gulf War against Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait. After the September 11, 2001 attack, the country declared a second "War on Terror," under which it has led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As of 2006, the U.S. is one of only two countries in the English-speaking world not to be a member of the Commonwealth (the other being the Republic of Ireland). It is believed that the U.S. has never applied for membership, nor would such an application be forthcoming in the future.
[edit] Diplomatic relations
Image:Howard and Bush.jpg
The United States has one of the largest diplomatic presences of any nation. Almost every country in the world has both a U.S. embassy and an embassy of its own in Washington, D.C. Only a few nations do not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States. They are:
- Bhutan
- Cuba
- Iran
- North Korea
- Somalia (no widely recognized government)
- Sudan
- Republic of China (Taiwan) (recognized by fewer than 30 countries)
- Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara)(Not Recognized)
In practical terms however, this lack of formal relations do not impede the U.S.'s communication with these nations. In the cases where no U.S. diplomatic post exists, American relations are usually conducted via the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, or another friendly third-party. In the case of the Republic of China, de facto relations are conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan. The U.S. also operates an "Interests Section in Havana". While this does not create a formal diplomatic relationship, it fulfils most other typical embassy functions.
The U.S. maintains a Normal Trade Relations list and several countries are excluded from it, which means that their exports to the United States are subject to significantly higher tariffs.
[edit] Allies
Image:Manmohan singh with bush.jpg
The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 26 nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. This is restricted to within the North American and European areas, for this reason the U.S. was not compelled to participate in the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom.
The United States has also given major non-NATO ally-status to fourteen nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.
The country's closest ally is the United Kingdom, itself a major military and economic power (see special relationship). Other allies include South Korea, Israel, Canada, Australia, and Japan. The government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), does not have official diplomatic relations recognized and is no longer officially recognized by the State Department of the United States, but it is considered by some an ally of the United States.
In 2005, U.S. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a landmark agreement between the two countries on civilian nuclear energy cooperation. The deal is significant because India is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and detonated a nuclear device in 1974. The deal will greatly increase strategic and economic cooperation between the world's two largest democracies<ref>LA Times article on Indo-US Deal</ref>.
[edit] Criticism and responses
US foreign policy has been heavily criticised by foreign media and spokespersons, including some of the media in allied countries such as the United Kingdom. Critics of U.S. foreign policy tend to state that the goals commonly regarded as noble were often overstated and point out what they see as contradictions between foreign policy rhetoric and actions:
- The mention of peace as opposed to the long list of U.S. military involvements
- The mention of freedom and democracy as opposed to the many former and current dictatorships that receive or received U.S. financial or military support, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
- The mention of free trade as opposed to U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood, steel and agricultural products.
- The mention of U.S. generosity as opposed to the low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries.
- The mention of environment safety as opposed to the lack of support for environmental treaties (for instance the Kyoto Protocol)
- The defense of human rights as opposed to the lack of ratification of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
There are a variety of responses to these criticisms. For instance, some argue that the increased American military involvement around the world is an outgrowth of the inherent instability of the world state system as it existed in the late 19th Century. The inherent failings of this system led to the outbreak of World War I and World War II. The United States has assumed a prominent peacekeeping role, on its own terms, due to the easily demonstrable inter-state insecurity that existed before 1945.
Further, some experts have stated that since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a war to defend against an imminent threat, it was a war of aggression, and therefore under the Nuremberg Principles it constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow. For example, Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.<ref name = "NYCJosh_use_ref_tags"> Glantz, Aaron (August 25 2006). "Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor". OneWorld.net.</ref> Similarly, under the U.N. Charter, ratified by the U.S. and therefore binding on it, all U.N. member states including the U.S. are prohibited from using force against fellow member states (Iraq is a member of the U.N.) except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit U.N. Security Council authorization (UN Charter; international law). "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war<ref name = "NYCJosh_use_ref_tags_dammnit"> Bernton, Hal (August 18 2006). "Iraq war bashed at hearing for soldier who wouldn't go". The Seattle Times.</ref>
Other realist critics, such as the late George F. Kennan, have noted that the responsibility of the United States is only to protect the rights of its own citizens, and that therefore Washington should deal with other governments as just that. Heavy emphasis on democratization or nation-building abroad, realists charge, was one of the major tenets of President Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic philosophy. According to realists, the failure of the League of Nations to enforce the will of the international community in the cases of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in the 1930s, as well as the inherent weakness of the new states created at the Paris Peace Conference, demonstrated the folly of Wilson's idealism.
There is also criticism of alleged human rights abuse, the most important recent examples of which are the multiple reports of alleged prisoner abuse and torture at U.S.-run detention camps in Guantánamo Bay (at "Camp X-ray") (in Cuba), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), secret CIA prisons (eastern Europe), and other places voiced by, e.g. the Council of Europe and Amnesty International. Amnesty International in its Amnesty International Report 2005 [1] says that: "the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times" [2]. This Amnesty report also claimed that there was a use of double standards in the U.S. government: the U.S. president "has repeatedly asserted that the United States was founded upon and is dedicated to the cause of human dignity". (Theme of his speech to the UN General Assembly in Sep 2004). But some memorandums emerged after the Abu Ghraib scandal "suggested that the administration was discussing ways in which its agents could avoid the international ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" [3]. Government responses to these criticisms include that Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and the network of secret CIA jails in Eastern Europe and the Middle East were largely isolated incidents and not reflective of general U.S. conduct, and at the same time maintain that coerced interrogation in Guantánamo and Europe is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.
U.S. generosity is not demonstrated in the relatively low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries. However as far as measured by goods and monetary amounts the U.S is the most generous. The average U.S. citizen donates relatively more of his or her private, personal time and income to charity than any other nation's citizens. Religious tithes, emergency donations to relief organizations, and donations to medical research, for example, are common and frequent. The United States tax code structure is designed to further this type of charitable donation by private individuals and corporations.
[edit] Territorial disputes
The United States is involved with several territorial disputes, including maritime disputes over the Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Northwest Passage, and areas around Machias Seal Island and North Rock with Canada. <ref name="CIA-transnational">"Transnational Issues". April 20, 2006. CIA World factbook. Accessed April 30, 2006.</ref> These disputes have become dormant recently, and are largely considered not to affect the strong relations between the two nations.
Other disputes include:
- U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay is leased from Cuba and only mutual agreement or U.S. abandonment of the area can terminate the lease. Cuba contends that the lease is invalid as the Platt Amendment creating the lease was included in the Cuban Constitution under threat of force and thus is voided by article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
- Haiti claims Navassa Island.
- U.S. has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other nation.
- Marshall Islands claims Wake Island.
[edit] Illicit drugs
United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to halt imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. 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 which prohibited the 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 [4], 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 twelve months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; 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 marijuana continues. The U.S. believes that The Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.
[edit] Military aid
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.
[edit] History of exporting democracy
- Further information: Iran Freedom and Support Act
In the history of the United States, presidents have often used democracy as a justification for military intervention abroad.<ref name="Why">Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de, George W. Downs (Spring 2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest 2. Also see this page.</ref><ref>Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391-402. p. 391 </ref> A number of studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Most studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the history of the United States exporting democracy.<ref name="operation"> Tures, John A.. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations". Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations.PDF file.</ref> Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligable, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."<ref name = "Abraham"> Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. In Exporting Democracy, Themes and Issues, edited by Abraham Lowenthal p. 243-265. </ref><ref name="mark7"> Penceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01883-6. p. 183</ref>
But some studies, such as a study by Tures find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,<ref name="operation" /> and another by Hermann and Kegley have found that military inteventions have increased democracy in other countries.<ref name="promote">Hermann, Margaret G., Charles W. Kegley, Jr.. "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions 24 (2): 91-114.</ref>
[edit] U.S. intervention does not export democracy
Professor Paul W. Drake explains that the United States first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argues that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." Democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and American leaders usually defined democracy as elections only. Further the United States Department of State disapproved of any rebellion of any kind, which were often incorrectly labeled "revolutions", even against dictatorships.<ref name="LA">Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1. p. 1, 4, 5.</ref> As historian Walter LaFeber states, "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."<ref name = "Walter"> Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9.</ref>
Mesquita and Downs evaluate the period between 1945 to 2004. They state that the U.S. has intervened in 35 countries, and only in one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within 10 years.<ref name="Why2">Factors included (1) limits on executive power, (2) clear rules for the transition of power, (3) universal adult suffrage, and (4) competitive elections.</ref> Samia Amin Pei argues that nation building in developed countries usually begins to unravel four to six years after American intervention ends. Pei, quoting Polity, (a database on democracy in the world), agrees with Mesquita and Downs that most countries where the U.S. intervenes never becomes a democracy or becomes more authoritarian after 10 years.<ref>Pei, Samia Amin, Seth Garz (March 17 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune.</ref>
Professor Joshua Muravchik argues that U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after World War II, but America's failure to build democracy in the third world "prove...that U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."<ref name="Mark4">Penceny, p. 186.</ref><ref name = "joshua"> Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press. ISBN 0-8447-3734-8. p. 91-118.</ref> The success of democracy in former Axis countries maybe because of these countries per-capita income. Steven Krasner of the CDDRL states that a high per capita income may help build a democracy, because no democratic country with a per-capita income which is above $6,000 has ever become an autocracy.<ref name="LA">Krasner, Stephen D. (November 26 2003). "We Don't Know How To Build Democracy". Los Angeles Times. </ref>
[edit] U.S. intervention has mixed results
Tures examines 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. The majority 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.<ref name="operation"/>
[edit] U.S. intervention has exported democracy
Hermann and Kegley find that American military interventions which are designed to protect or promote democracy increase freedom in those countries.<ref name="promote"/> Penceny argues that the democracies created after military intervetion is 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."<ref>Przeworski, Adam, Michael M. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub (1996). "What Makes Democracy Endure". Journal of Democracy 7 (1): 39-55.</ref> Therefore, Penceny 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.<ref>Penceny, p. 193</ref>
Penceny states that the United States has attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 twentieth-century military interventions.<ref name="mark6">Penceny, p. 2</ref> Penceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.<ref>Review: Shifter, Michael (Winter 2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society.</ref>
[edit] Quotes
| {{{1}}} |
| {{{1}}} |
Smedley Butler, who confessed to Congress in 1934 that he was involved in a failed military coup against the Roosevelt administration, was a popular lecturer on the left-wing circuit who claimed:
| I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.<ref>General Smedley Darlington Butler, Common Sense, 1935</ref> |
[edit] See also
| History of U.S. expansion and influence Image:Flag of the United States.svg |
| American Empire |
| Foreign relations |
| List of military actions |
| Non-interventionism |
| Opposition to expansion |
| Overseas expansion |
| Pax Americana |
| Territorial acquisitions |
- American empire
- American diplomatic missions
- Extraordinary rendition
- List of United States military history events
- Special relationship
- Timeline of United States diplomatic history
- United States and the United Nations
- United States, Chanceries of Foreign Governments
- Unlawful combatant
Relations with specific foreign nations:
- Afghanistan: United States-Afghanistan relations
- Australia: United_States-Australia_relations
- Canada: Canada-United States relations
- China: Sino-American relations
- Côte d'Ivoire(Ivory Coast): United States-Côte d'Ivoire relations
- Cuba Cuba-United States relations
- France: Franco-American relations
- Germany: German-American relations
- Iran: U.S.-Iran relations
- Israel: Israel-United States relations
- North Korea: U.S.-North Korea relations
- Japan: Japan-American relations
- Russia: Russo-United States relations
- South Korea: South Korea-U.S. relations
- Turkey: Turkey-United States relations
- United Kingdom: Anglo-American relations
- Venezuela: United States-Venezuela relations
- United Nations: United States and the United Nations
[edit] References
<references/>
[edit] External links
- A site explaining U.S. foreign policy during the last 60 years
- U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy, a Background Q&A by cfr.org, the website of the Council on Foreign Relations
- U.S. State Dept. Documentary: Foreign Relations of the United States
- Foreign Relations of the United States 1861-1960 (full text from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries)
- Timeline of U.S. diplomatic history
- Introduction to U.S. foreign aid
- Foreign aid by country
- India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States"
- An analysis of the strained love-hate relationship between U.S. and Pakistan by Prof. Adil Najam of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy published in The News International
- Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index Tracking survey of American public attitudes on foreign policy, conducted by Public Agenda with Foreign Affairs magazine.
- Speech by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on U.S. Policy in Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation on October 25, 2006
[edit] Further reading
[edit] History of exporting democracy
- Barro, Robert J. (Spring 2002). "Democracy in Afghanistan: Don't Hold Your Breath". Hoover Digest (2).*
- Carothers, Thomas (January/Februrary 2003). "Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror". Foreign Affairs: 84.*
- Diamond, Larry (2004). "The Long Haul". Hoover Digest (2).*
- Forsythe, David P. (2000). "U.S. Foreign Policy and Enlarging the Democratic Community". Human Rights Quarterly 22 (4): 988-1010.*
- Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Lene Siljeholm, Havard Hegre (April 13-18 2004). "Democratic Jihad? Military Intervention and Democracy". Paper presented at the workshop on Resources, Governance Structure and Civil War, Uppsala, Sweden. Finds that democratizatioin is unpredictable in the long-term.
- Hay, William Anthony (April 28 2006). "Can Democracy Be Imposed from the Outside?". Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). Alternative link. International history of exporting democracy. In the United States after idealism fails, the goal becomes a realist focus on stability and the protection of American interests.
- Hermann, Margaret G., Charles W. Kegley, Jr.. "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions 24 (2): 91-114. Uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.
- Krasner, Stephen D. (November 26 2003). "We Don't Know How To Build Democracy". Los Angeles Times.*
- Lawson, Chappell, Strom C. Tucker (2003). "Democracy? In Iraq?". Hoover Digest 3 (3). This study points to 19 cases of U.S. intervention "in the last century," including Afghanistan, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Germany, Grenada, Haiti, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Somalia, South Korea, and South Vietnam. In half of these cases democratic institutions remained, in the other half they did not. To determine the success of Iraq becoming a democracy, this study uses data compiled by Freedom House measuring democracy in 186 countries, during four years, the years 1996 through 2000.
- Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.
- Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391-402.
- Pei, Samia Amin, Seth Garz (March 17 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune. The study finds that democracies built by the U.S. begin to unravel in the decade after U.S. forces depart, because political elites begin to change the law to fit their own interests. This study points to 14 cases of U.S. intervention in the twentieth century.
- Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01883-6. This book finds that when the U.S. interventions later supported elections, the democracy was more likely to succeed. This study points to 25 cases of U.S. intervention between 1898 and 1992.
- Review: Shifter, Michael (Winter 2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society.
- 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.
- Tures, John A.. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations". Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations.PDF file. This study points to 30 U.S. interventions between 1945 and 1991. Also uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.
- Tures, John A.. "To Protect Democracy (Not Practice It): Explanations of Dyadic Democratic Intervention (DDI) The Use of Liberal Ends to Justify Illiberal Means". OJPCR: The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution.
[edit] Warnings
These studies warn that liberal states are likely to wield "illiberal methods" in promoting democracy in other countries.
- Doyle, Michael W. (December 1986). "Liberalism and World Politics". American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1151-1161.
- Machiavelli, Niccolo, Max Lerner, ed. Luigi Ricci and Christian Detmold, trans. (1950). The Prince and the Discourses. New York: Modern Library.
- Nils Petter Gleditsch, "Democracy and Peace," in Gomien, Donna (1995). Broadening the Frontiers of Human Rights. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press. ISBN 82-00-41097-8. p. 287-306.
- * When citing this article Tures states:
- "Some articles...focus exclusively on the role that internal factors play in post-military operation transitions....limiting the analysis to domestic matters ignores the fact that the American military was present and that it influenced a country’s government."
| United States Foreign Policy
<td style="vertical-align: middle; width: 1px" rowspan="2"> Image:Flag of the United States.svg </td> |
|---|
| Presidential: Proclamation of Neutrality • Monroe Doctrine • Roosevelt Corollary • Truman Doctrine • Eisenhower Doctrine • Kennedy Doctrine • Johnson Doctrine • Nixon Doctrine • Carter Doctrine • Reagan Doctrine • Clinton Doctrine • Bush Doctrine
Other: Lodge Corollary • Containment • Domino theory • Rollback • Stimson Doctrine • Kirkpatrick Doctrine • Weinberger Doctrine • Powell Doctrine • Rumsfeld Doctrine • Wolfowitz Doctrine |
