Foreign policy of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States

This article is part of a series on the

politics and government of
the United States

The foreign policy of the United States is the way in which it interacts with foreign nations and sets
standards of interaction for its organizations, corporations and individual citizens. The global reach of
the United States is backed by a $15 trillion economy, [1] approximately a quarter of global GDP, and a
defense budget of $711 billion, which accounts for approximately 43% of global military spending.
The U.S. Secretary of State is analogous to the foreign minister of other nations and is officially
charged with state-to-state diplomacy, although the president has ultimate authority over foreign
policy; that policy includes defining the national interest, as well as the strategies chosen both to
safeguard that and to achieve its policy goals. The current Secretary of State is John Kerry.

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

Contents

 1 Powers of the President and Congress

 2 Historical overview
o 2.1 20th century
 2.1.1 World War I
 2.1.2 World War II
 2.1.3 Cold War
o 2.2 21st century
 3 Law
 4 Alliances
 o 4.1 NATO
 5 Geography
o 5.1 United Kingdom
o 5.2 Canada
o 5.3 Mexico
o 5.4 Australia
o 5.5 Middle East
o 5.6 Japan
o 5.7 South Korea
o 5.8 China
o 5.9 Taiwan
o 5.10 ASEAN
 5.10.1 Indonesia
 5.10.2 Malaysia
 5.10.3 Myanmar
 5.10.4 Philippines
 5.10.5 Thailand
 5.10.6 Vietnam
o 5.11 Eastern Europe
o 5.12 Kosovo
o 5.13 Hub and spoke vs multilateral
 6 Oil
o 6.1 Persian Gulf
o 6.2 Canada
o 6.3 Africa
 7 Foreign aid
 8 Military
o 8.1 Aid
o 8.2 Missile defense
o 8.3 Exporting democracy
 8.3.1 Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy
 8.3.2 Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results
 8.3.3 Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy
 9 Covert actions
 10 Human Rights
 11 War on Drugs
 12 Criticism
 13 Support
 14 See also
o 14.1 Constitutional and international law
o 14.2 Diplomacy
o 14.3 Intelligence
o 14.4 Military
o 14.5 Policy and doctrine
 15 References
 16 Further reading
 17 External links

2
Powers of the President and Congress

The US Constitution gives much of the foreign policy decision-making to the presidency, but the
Senate has a role in ratifying treaties, and the Supreme Court interprets treaties when cases are
presented to it.
Main articles: Treaty Clause, War Powers Clause, Appointments Clause, and Foreign Commerce
Clause

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

Historical overview

Main articles: History of U.S. foreign policy and Timeline of United States diplomatic history

3
The Jay Treaty of 1795 aligned the U.S. more with Britain less with France, leading to political
polarization at home

The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift
from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global
hegemony during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century.[5] Since the
19th century, US foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the
idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations.[6]

Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address; these
included among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating
peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and
passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the
foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations. These policies became the basis of the Federalist
Party in the 1790s. But the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored France in the 1790s,
declaring the War of 1812 on Britain. After the 1778 alliance with France, the U.S. did not sign
another permanent treaty until the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Over time, other themes, key goals,
attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by Presidential 'doctrines', named for them.
Initially these were uncommon events, but since WWII, these have been made by most presidents.

In general, the United States followed an isolationist foreign policy until attacks against U.S. shipping
by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting
in the First Barbary War in 1801.[7]

Despite occasional entanglements with European Powers such as the War of 1812 and the 1898
Spanish-American War, U.S. foreign policy was marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade and
scope during the 19th century, and it maintained its policy of avoiding wars with and between
European powers. Concerning its domestic borders, the 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled the nation's
geographical area; Spain ceded the territory of Florida in 1819; annexation brought Texas in 1845; a
war with Mexico in 1848 added California, Arizona and New Mexico. The U.S. bought Alaska from
the Russian Empire in 1867, and it annexed the Republic of Hawaii in 1898. Victory over Spain in
1898 brought the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, as well as oversight of Cuba. The short experiment in

4
imperialism ended by 1908, as the U.S. turned its attention to the Panama Canal and the stabilization
of regions to its south, including Mexico.

20th century

World War I

The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which the United States, along with allied powers,
defeated its enemies and increased its international reputation. President Wilson's Fourteen Points,
developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism
so as to end wars. It became the basis of the German Armistice (really a surrender) and the 1919 Paris
Peace Conference. The resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial
designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points and the U.S. signed separate treaties with
each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the League of Nations,
which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States followed an
independent course, and succeeded in a program of naval disarmament, and refunding the German
economy. New York became the financial capital of the world, but the downside was that the Wall
Street Crash of 1929 hurled the entire world into the Great Depression. American trade policy relied
on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any
case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s.

World War II

Main article: Diplomatic history of World War II: United States

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

The United States adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but then President
Franklin D. Roosevelt moved toward strong support of the Allies in their wars against Germany and
Japan. As a result of intense internal debate, the national policy was one of becoming the Arsenal of
Democracy, that is financing and equipping the Allied armies without sending American combat
soldiers. Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which ought to be enjoyed by people
"everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from
want and fear. Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-war world among potential allies at the
Atlantic Conference; specific points were included to correct earlier failures, which became a step
toward the United Nations. American policy was to threaten Japan, to force it out of China, and to
prevent its attacking the Soviet Union. However, Japan reacted by an attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of the loans
given to allies in World War I, the United States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000.
Working closely with Winston Churchill of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt
sent his forces into the Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and
finally into Europe starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans. The American
economy roared forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes,
5
ships, tanks, munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. Much of the American war effort went to
strategic bombers, which flattened the cities of Japan and Germany.

Cold War

Main article: History of the Cold War

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

After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant non-colonial economic power with broad
influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine.
Almost immediately however, the world witnessed division into broad two camps during the Cold
War; one side was led by the U.S., and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the
establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th
century, and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the two superpowers. A
policy of containment was adopted to limit Soviet expansion, and a series of proxy wars were fought
with mixed results. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War
formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation
and other former Soviet states. With these changes to forty-five years of established diplomacy and
military confrontation, new challenges confronted U.S. policymakers. American foreign policy is
characterized by the protection of its national interests.

21st century

In the 21st century, U.S. influence remains strong but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of
economic output compared to rising nations such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and the newly
consolidated European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear
proliferation, and the specter of nuclear terrorism. Foreign policy analysts Hachigian and Sutphen in
their book The Next American Century suggest all six powers have similar vested interests in stability
and terrorism prevention and trade; if they can find common ground, then the next decades may be
marked by peaceful growth and prosperity.[8]

Law

Main articles: Treaty and Treaty Clause

In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:

 Executive agreements
o Congressional-executive agreements are made by the president and Congress. A
majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation after it is
signed by the president. The constitution does not expressly state that these
agreements are allowed, and constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they
are unconstitutional. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their validity.
o Sole executive agreements are made by the president alone.
 Treaties are formal written agreements specified by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution.
The president makes a treaty with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be
ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. For example, President Wilson proposed the Treaty
of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was rejected
by the U.S. Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently made separate agreements with different
nations. While most international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty, the U.S.
sense of the term is more restricted. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the
power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other

6
 enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use
treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the
states.

International law in most nations considers all three of the above agreements as treaties. In most
nations, treaty laws supersede domestic law. So if there is a conflict between a treaty obligation and a
domestic law, then the treaty usually prevails.

In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as distinct.
Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result,
Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterwards. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation
even if this is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings
confirmed this understanding, including the 1900 Supreme Court decision in Paquete Habana, a late
1950s decision in Reid v. Covert, and a lower court ruling in 1986 in Garcia-Mir v. Meese. Further,
the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to rule a treaty as void by declaring it
"unconstitutional", although as of 2011, it has never exercised this power.

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
represents established law. Generally when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, because of
the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says, in effect,
that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to be in violation of the
Constitution, then the U.S. legally can't abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra
vires.

Alliances

NATO

A map of allies of the United States

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

The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 28-nation
alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe, including the nation with NATO's second largest
military, the United Kingdom. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any
NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. NATO is restricted to within the North American and
European areas. In 1989, the United States also granted five nations the major non-NATO ally status
(MNNA); this number was increased in the late 1990s and following the September 11 attacks; it
currently includes 15 nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States,
involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

7
Geography

United Kingdom

Main article: United Kingdom–United States relations

Further information: Special Relationship and Anglosphere

Queen Elizabeth II welcomes President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama to Buckingham Palace
on April 1, 2009.

United States foreign policy affirms its alliance with the United Kingdom as its most important[citation
needed]
bilateral relationship in the world, evidenced by aligned political affairs between the White
House and 10 Downing Street, as well as joint military operations carried out between the two nations.
While both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain close relationships with many other
nations around the world, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military
operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing with each other has been described
as "unparalleled" among major powers throughout the 20th and early 21st century.[9]

The United States and Britain share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership.
American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct
investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion.[10]

Canada

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) and President Obama (left) meet in Ottawa in
February 2009
Main article: Canada–United States relations

The bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States is of notable importance to both
countries. About 75–85% of Canadian trade is with the United States, and Canada is the United States'
largest trading partner and chief supplier of oil. While there are disputed issues between the two
nations, relations are close and the two countries share the "world's longest undefended border."[11]
The border was demilitarized after the War of 1812 and, apart from minor raids has remained peaceful.
Military collaboration began during World War II and continued throughout the Cold War on both a

8
bilateral basis and a multilateral relationship through NATO. A high volume of trade and migration
between the United States and Canada since the 1850s has generated closer ties, despite continued
Canadian fears of being culturally overwhelmed by its neighbor, which is nine times larger in terms of
population and eleven times larger in terms of economy.[12][13] The two economies have increasingly
merged since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, which also includes
Mexico.

Mexico

Main article: Mexico–United States relations

The United States shares a unique and often complex relationship with Mexico. A history of armed
conflict goes back to the Texas Revolution in the 1830s, the Mexican–American War in the 1840s, and
an American invasion in the 1910s. Important treaties include the Gadsden Purchase, and
multilaterally with Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The central issue in recent
years has been illegal immigration, followed by illegal gun sales (from the U.S.), drug smuggling (to
the U.S.) and escalating drug cartel violence just south of the U.S.-Mexico border.[14][15]

Australia

Main article: Australia–United States relations

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd talks with United States President Barack Obama in
Washington

The United States' relationship with Australia is a very close one, with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton stating that "America doesn't have a better friend in the world than Australia".[16] The
relationship is formalized by the ANZUS treaty and the Australia–United States Free Trade
Agreement. The two countries have a shared history, both have previously been British Colonies and
many Americans flocked to the Australian goldfields in the 19th century. At a strategic level, the
relationship really came to prominence in World War II, when the two nations worked extremely
closely in the Pacific War against Japan, with General Douglas MacArthur undertaking his role as
Supreme Allied Commander based in Australia, effectively having Australian troops and resources
under his command. During this period, the cultural interaction between Australia and the U.S. were
elevated to a higher level as over 1 million U.S. military personnel moved through Australia during the
course of the war. The relationship continued to evolve throughout the second half of the 20th
Century, and today now involves strong relationships at the executive and mid levels of government
and the military, leading Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kurt M.
Campbell to declare that "in the last ten years, [Australia] has ascended to one of the closest one or
two allies [of the U.S.] on the planet".[17]

9
Middle East

Main article: United States foreign policy in the Middle East

The United States has many important allies in the Greater Middle East region. These allies are
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and
Morocco. Israel and Egypt are leading recipients of United States foreign aid, receiving $2.775
billion[18] and 1.75 billion[19] in 2010. Turkey is an ally of the United States through its membership in
NATO, while all of the other countries except Saudi Arabia and Qatar are major non-NATO allies.

The United States invested several hundred billion dollars in the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and
military in 2003 invasion of Iraq.[20] Turkey is host to approximately 90 B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik
Air Base.[21] Other allies include Qatar, where 3,500 U.S. troops are based,[22] and Bahrain, where the
United States Navy maintains NSA Bahrain, home of NAVCENT and the Fifth Fleet.

Japan

Main article: Japan–United States relations

The relationship began in the 1850s as the U.S. was a major factor in forcing Japan to resume contacts
with the outer world beyond a very restricted role. In the late 19th century the Japanese sent many
delegations to Europe, and some to the U.S., to discover and copy the latest technology and thereby
modernize Japan very rapidly and allow it to build its own empire. There was some friction over
control of Hawaii and the Philippines, but Japan stood aside as the U.S. annexed those lands in 1898.
Likewise the U.S. did not object when Japan took control of Korea. The two nations cooperated with
the European powers in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, but the U.S. was
increasingly troubled about Japan's denial of the Open Door Policy that would ensure that all nations
could do business with China on an equal basis.[23]

President Theodore Roosevelt admired Japan's strength as it defeated a major European power, Russia.
He brokered an end to the war between Russia and Japan in 1905–6. Anti-Japanese sentiment
(especially on the West Coast) soured relations in the 1907–24 era. In the 1930s the U.S. protested
vehemently against Japan's seizure of Manchuria (1947), its war against China (1937–45), and its
seizure of Indochina (Vietnam) 1940–41. American sympathies were with China and Japan rejected
increasingly angry American demands that Japan pull out of China. The two nations fought an all-out
war 1941–45; the U.S. won a total victory, with heavy bombing (including two atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki) that devastated Japan's 50 largest industrial cities. The American army under
Douglas MacArthur occupied and ruled Japan, 1945–51, with the successful goal of sponsoring a
peaceful, prosperous and democratic nation.[24]

In 1951, the U.S. and Japan signed Treaty of San Francisco and Security Treaty Between the United
States and Japan, subsequently revised as Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the
United States and Japan in 1960, relations since then have been excellent. The United States considers
Japan to be one of its closest allies, and it is both a Major Non-NATO ally and NATO contact country.
The United States has several military bases in Japan including Yokosuka, which harbors the U.S. 7th
Fleet. The JSDF, or Japanese Self Defense Force, cross train with the U.S. Military, often providing
auxiliary security and conducting war games. When the U.S.President Barack Obama met with
Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso in 2009, he said the relationship with Japan as the "cornerstone of
security in East Asia".[25] After the several years of critical moment during Japan's Democratic Party
administration, President Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reconfirmed the importance of its
alliance and currently the U.S. and Japan negotiating to participate Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic
Partnership.[26][27]

South Korea

10
Main article: South Korea–United States relations

South Korea–United States relations have been most extensive since 1945, when the United States
helped establish capitalism in South Korea and led the UN-sponsored Korean War against North
Korea and China (1950–1953).[28] Stimulated by heavy American aid, South Korea's rapid economic
growth, democratization and modernization greatly reduced its U.S. dependency. Large numbers of
U.S. forces remain in Korea. At the 2009 G-20 London summit, U.S. President Barack Obama called
South Korea "one of America's closest allies and greatest friends." [29]

China

Main article: Sino-American relations

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

American relations with the People's Republic of China are complex. A great amount of trade between
the two countries necessitates positive political relations, although occasional disagreements over
tariffs, currency exchange rates and the Political status of Taiwan do occur. The U.S. criticizes China
on human rights issues.

Taiwan

Main article: Republic of China–United States relations

Taiwan (officially the Republic of China), does not have official diplomatic relations with America
and no longer receives diplomatic recognition from the State Department of the United States, but it
conducts unofficial diplomatic relations through its de facto embassy, commonly known as the
"American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)", and is considered to be a strong Asian ally and supporter of the
United States.[30]

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an important partner for United States in both
economic and geostrategic aspects. ASEAN’s geostrategic importance stems from many factors,
including: the strategic location of member countries, the large shares of global trade that pass through
regional waters, and the alliances and partnerships which the United States shares with ASEAN
member states. In July 2009, the United States signed ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation,
which establishes guiding principles intended to build confidence among its signatories with the aim
of maintaining regional peace and stability.[31] Trade flows are robust and increasing between America
and the ASEAN region. Since 2002 exports to the United States have gained 40% in value while U.S.
exports to ASEAN increased 62%.[32]

11
Indonesia

Main article: Indonesia–United States relations

As the largest ASEAN member, Indonesia has played an active and prominent role in developing the
organization.[33] For United States, Indonesia is important for dealing with certain issues; such as
terrorism,[34] democracy, and how United States project its relations with Islamic world, since
Indonesia has the world’s largest Islamic population, and one that honors and respects religious
diversity.[35] US eyes Indonesia as potential strategic allies in Southeast Asia.[36] During his stately visit
to Indonesia, U.S. President Barack Obama has held up Indonesia as an example of how a developing
nation can embrace democracy and diversity.[37][38]

Malaysia

Main article: Malaysia–United States relations

Despite poor relations under the Mahathir Mohamad government, ties have been thawed under Najib
Razak's administration. Economic ties are particularly robust, with the United States being Malaysia's
largest trading partner and Malaysia is the tenth-largest trading partner of the U.S. Annual two-way
trade amounts to $49 billion. The United States and Malaysia launched negotiations for a bilateral free
trade agreement (FTA) in June 2006.

The United States and Malaysia enjoy strong security cooperation. Malaysia hosts the Southeast Asia
Regional Center for Counterterrorism (SEARCCT), where over 2000 officials from various countries
have received training. The United States is among the foreign countries that has collaborated with the
center in conducting capacity building programmes. The U.S. and Malaysia share a strong military-to-
military relationship with numerous exchanges, training, joint exercises, and visits.

Myanmar

Main article: Burma–United States relations

Bilateral ties have generally been strained but are slowly improving. The United States has placed
broad sanctions on Burma because of the military crackdown in 1988 and the military regime's refusal
to honour the election results of the 1990 People's Assembly election. Similarly, the European Union
has placed embargoes on Burma, including an arms embargo, cessation of trade preferences, and
suspension of all aid with the exception of humanitarian aid.[39]

US and European government sanctions against the military government, alongside boycotts and other
types direct pressure on corporations by western supporters of the Burmese democracy movement,
have resulted in the withdrawal from Burma of most U.S. and many European companies. However,
several Western companies remain due to loopholes in the sanctions.[40] Asian corporations have
generally remained willing to continue investing in Myanmar and to initiate new investments,
particularly in natural resource extraction.

Ongoing reforms have improved relations between Burma and the United States.

Philippines

Main article: Philippines–United States relations

The United States ruled the Philippines from 1898 to 1946. The Spanish government ceded the
Philippines to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish-American War. The

12
United States finally recognized Philippine independence on July 4, 1946 in the Treaty of Manila.[41]
July 4 was observed in the Philippines as Independence Day until August 4, 1964 when, upon the
advice of historians and the urging of nationalists, President Diosdado Macapagal signed into law
Republic Act No. 4166 designating June 12 as the country's Independence Day.[42] Since 2003 the U.S.
has designated the Philippines as a Major Non-NATO Ally.

According to Brewer,[43] the United States has consistently used propaganda to give a false impression
of a war for democracy, while fighting wars in far off countries.

Thailand

Main article: Thailand–United States relations

Thailand and the US are both former Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) members, being
close partners throughout the Cold War, and are still close allies. Since 2003, the U.S. has designated
the Thailand as a Major Non-NATO Ally.

Vietnam

Main article: United States–Vietnam relations

United States involved in Vietnam War in 1955 to 1975. In 1995, President Bill Clinton announced the
formal normalization of diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Today US eyes Vietnam as a potential
strategic ally in Southeast Asia.[36]

Eastern Europe

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

American relations with Eastern Europe are influenced by the legacy of the Cold War. Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, former Communist-bloc states in Europe have gradually transitioned to
democracy and capitalism. Many have also joined the European Union and NATO, strengthening
economic ties with the broader Western world and gaining the military protection of the United States
via the North Atlantic Treaty.

Kosovo

Main article: Kosovo–United States relations

The UN Security Council remains divided on the question of Kosovo's declaration of independence.
Kosovo declared its independence on February 17, 2008, whilst Serbia maintains that Kosovo is part
of its territory. Of the five members with veto power in the UN Security Council, the USA, UK, and
France recognized the declaration of independence, and China has expressed concern, while Russia
considers it illegal. "In its declaration of independence, Kosovo committed itself to the highest

13
standards of democracy, including freedom and tolerance and justice for citizens of all ethnic
backgrounds", former President George W Bush of the US Republican party said on February 19,
2008.[44][45]

Hub and spoke vs multilateral

While America's relationships with Europe have tended to be in terms of multilateral frameworks,
such as NATO, America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a series of bilateral
relationships where the client states would coordinate with the United States in order to not have to
deal directly with each other. On May 30, 2009, at the Shangri-La Dialogue Defense Secretary Robert
M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew
multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc arrangements in the area.[46] However
in 2011 Gates said that the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation," for building
multilateral cooperation.[47]

Oil

Persian Gulf

Further information: Energy policy of the United States and Petroleum politics

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

The U.S. currently produces about 40% of the oil that it consumes; its imports have exceeded domestic
production since the early 1990s. Since the U.S.'s oil consumption continues to rise, and its oil
production continues to fall, this ratio may continue to decline.[48] Former U.S. President George W.
Bush identified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security concern".[49]

Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf.[50][51]
Despite its distance, the Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the
United States during World War II. Petroleum is of central importance to modern armies, and the
United States—as the world's leading oil producer at that time—supplied most of the oil for the Allied
armies. Many U.S. strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the U.S. oil
supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil
reserves.[52]

The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States
during the Cold War. Three Cold War United States Presidential doctrines—the Truman Doctrine, the
Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine—played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine,
which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its "national
interests" in the Persian Gulf region.[53] Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the
policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine",
which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was
threatened after the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War.[54] Some analysts have argued that the
implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of
the 2003 Iraq War.[55][56][57][58]

Canada

Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of
U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the
largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.[59]

14
Africa

In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28.4% of
exports (second in total to the EU at 31.4%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum
products.[60]

Foreign aid

Main articles: United States foreign aid and United States Agency for International Development

Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget and is
considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. There are four major categories of non-
military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political
and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (for example,
contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund).[61]

In absolute dollar terms, the United States is the largest international aid donor ($22.7 billion in 2006),
but as a percent of gross national income, its contribution is only 0.2%, proportionally much smaller
than contributions of countries such as Sweden (1.04%) and the United Kingdom (0.52%). The U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance;
the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid.

Although the United States is the largest donor in absolute dollar terms, it is actually ranked 19 out of
27 countries on the Commitment to Development Index. The CDI ranks the 27 richest donor countries
on their policies that affect the developing world. In the aid component the United States is penalized
for low net aid volume as a share of the economy, a large share of tied or partially tied aid, and a large
share of aid given to less poor and relatively undemocratic governments.

Military

The United States has fought wars and intervened militarily on many occasions. See, Timeline of
United States military operations. The U.S. also operates a vast network of military bases around the
world. See List of United States military bases.

In recent years, the U.S. has used its military superiority as sole superpower to lead a number of wars,
including, most recently, the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as part of its global "War on Terror."

Aid

Main articles: United States military aid, United States Foreign Military Financing, and Foreign
Military Sales

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

15
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.[62] Since 9/11, Pakistan has received approximately $11.5 billion in direct military
aid.[63]

As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different
countries.[64]

Estimated US foreign military financing and aid by recipient for 2010:

Recipient Military aid (USD Billions)

Iraq 6.50
Afghanistan 5.60[65]
Israel 2.75[18]
Egypt 1.75[19]
Pakistan 1.60[66]
Colombia .834[67]
Jordan .300[68]
Palestinian Authority .100[19]
Yemen .070

Missile defense

Main articles: National missile defense and Strategic Defense Initiative

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23,
1983[69] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic
nuclear ballistic missiles,[70] later dubbed "Star Wars".[71] The initiative focused on strategic defense
rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Though it was
never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-
ballistic missile systems of today.[72]

In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning
construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
system[73] (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan).[74] According to press reports the
government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree) [75] to host a missile defense
radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.[76][77]

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia's border with NATO if the
United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the
Czech Republic.[78][79] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the
shield in Central Europe.[80] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[81]

On August 14, 2008, The United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense
system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.[82] "The fact that this
was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States
over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not
against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy,
said.[73][83]

16
Exporting democracy

See also: American democracy promotion in the Middle East and North Africa

In United States history, critics have charged that presidents have used democracy to justify military
intervention abroad.[84][85] Critics have also charged that the U.S. overthrew democratically elected
governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances. Studies have been devoted to the historical
success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have
been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign
nations.[86] Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor
Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often
counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."[87][88] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had
mixed results,[86] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have
improved democracy in other countries.[89]

Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy

Professor Paul W. Drake argued that the U.S. first attempted to export democracy in Latin America
through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argued that this was contradictory because
international law defines intervention as "dictatorial interference in the affairs of another state for the
purpose of altering the condition of things." The study suggested that efforts to promote democracy
failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and can not be forcibly imposed.
There was disagreement about what constituted democracy; Drake suggested American leaders
sometimes defined democracy in a narrow sense of a nation having elections; Drake suggested a
broader understanding was needed. Further, there was disagreement about what constituted a
"rebellion"; Drake saw a pattern in which the U.S. State Department disapproved of any type of
rebellion, even so-called "revolutions", and in some instances rebellions against dictatorships.[90]
Historian Walter LaFeber stated, "The world's leading revolutionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth
century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century."[91]

Mesquita and Downs evaluated 35 U.S. interventions from 1945 to 2004 and concluded that in only
one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within ten years following the
intervention.[92] Samia Amin Pei argued that nation building in developed countries usually unravelled
four to six years after American intervention ended. Pei, based on study of a database on worldwide
democracies called Polity, agreed with Mesquita and Downs that U.S. intervention efforts usually
don't produce real democracies, and that most cases result in greater authoritarianism after ten years.[93]

Professor Joshua Muravchik argued U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after
World War II, but America's failure to encourage democracy in the third world "prove... that U.S.
military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."[94][95] The success of
democracy in former Axis countries such as Italy were seen as a result of high national per-capita
income, although U.S. protection was seen as a key to stabilization and important for encouraging the
transition to democracy. Steven Krasner agreed that there was a link between wealth and democracy;
when per-capita incomes of $6,000 were achieved in a democracy, there was little chance of that
country ever reverting to an autocracy, according to an analysis of his research in the Los Angeles
Times.[90]

Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results

Tures examined 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. A
plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy. In 69 instances the
country became less democratic after the intervention. In the remaining 63 cases, a country became
more democratic.[86] However this does not take into account the direction the country would have
gone with no US intervention.

17
Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy

Hermann and Kegley found that American military interventions designed to protect or promote
democracy increased freedom in those countries.[89] Peceny argued that the democracies created after
military intervention are still closer to an autocracy than a democracy, quoting Przeworski "while
some democracies are more democratic than others, unless offices are contested, no regime should be
considered democratic."[96] Therefore, Peceny concludes, it is difficult to know from the Hermann and
Kegley study whether U.S. intervention has only produced less repressive autocratic governments or
genuine democracies.[97]

Peceny stated that the United States attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 20th-century
military interventions.[98] Peceny argued that proliberal policies after military intervention had a
positive impact on democracy.[99]

Covert actions

See also: Covert United States foreign regime change actions and Reagan Doctrine

United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been
opposed to the United States. In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, endorsed the
military in a coup d'État against the anti-British government of Iran led by Prime Minister Mohammad
Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian
Oil Company.[100] See Operation Ajax.

Human Rights

The inclusion of Human Rights in U.S. foreign policy had a controversial start. For one thing, human
rights driven foreign policy did not originate in the Executive branch but was instead enforced upon it
by Congress, starting in the 1970s.[101] Following the Vietnam War, the feeling that U.S. foreign policy
had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by Senator Donald M. Fraser (D,
MI), leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, in criticizing
Republican Foreign Policy under the Nixon administration. In the early 1970s, Congress concluded
the Vietnam War and passed the War Powers Act. As "part of a growing assertiveness by Congress
about many aspects of Foreign Policy,"[102] Human Rights concerns became a battleground between
the Legislative and the Executive branches in the formulation of foreign policy. David Forsythe points
to three specific, early examples of Congress interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:

1. Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensured assistance
through international financial institutions would be limited to countries "other than those
whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights."[102]
2. Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "[n]o
assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in
a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." [102]
3. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1978: "No security
assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent
pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."[102]

These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign policy
towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Guatemala and South Africa. The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the Cold War
required placing regional security in favor of US interests over any behavioral concerns of national
allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive
regimes.[101]

18
On December 6, 2011, he instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to
foreign countries.[103] Obama criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays,[104] joining other
western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.[105]

War on Drugs

Main article: War on Drugs

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of
illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. This is especially true in
Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts date back to at least 1880, when the
U.S. and China completed an agreement that 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,[106] the following
countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and
Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to
adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous 12
months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China 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 cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are
successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

Criticism

Main article: Criticism of American foreign policy

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

Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel.
Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that the U.S.
presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad.[84][85] It was also noted that the
U.S. overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances. Studies
have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some
studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts
to encourage democracy in foreign nations.[86] Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with
international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have
been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."[87][88] Other studies find
U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[86] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that
military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[89]

19
Support

Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, a response is that
they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist
dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted
necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the 'realist'
policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.[107][108]

Many democracies have voluntary military ties with United States. See NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of
Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with
South Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can
spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression
that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.[109][110]

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United
States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some
democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception,
correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role
of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully
implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.[111]

Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, have
killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[112][113] Media may be biased against the U.S. regarding
reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that The New York Times coverage of
worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations
where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights
violations in other nations.[114][115] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight
nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely
ignored by the media.

Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all the human rights violations in nations
they have supported. He writes that it is generally agreed that Guatemala was the worst of the US-
backed regimes during the Cold War. However, the U.S. cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000
deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War.[108] The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that
military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in
1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.[116]

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

Today the U.S. states that democratic Nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the
U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others.
Democratically governed nations are more

likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development,
protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights,
avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human

20
health."[117] According to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure
our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere.
Democracies don't attack each other."[118] In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department,
democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to
pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-
1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct
investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken
political reforms.[119] Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still
dominates the United States' relations with the world".[120]

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several
tools [121] Examples of these tools are as follows:

 A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Supporting Human Rights and
Democracy: The U.S. Record" in compliance with a 2002 law (enacted and signed by
President George W. Bush, which requires the Department to report on actions taken by the
U.S. Government to encourage respect for human rights.[122]
 A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." [123]
 In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights
Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards." [124]
 The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional
achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.[125]
 The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between
newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental
organizations.[126]
 The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983
(and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, which is mostly funded by the U.S.
Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world

See also

Constitutional and Military History of U.S.

international law expansion and
 2003 invasion of Iraq influence
 Advice and consent  American intervention in the Middle
 Afroyim v. Rusk East Foreign policy
 Garcia-Mir v. Meese  Bulgarian–American Joint Military
Military history
 List of United States Facilities
treaties  NATO Timeline of military
 Missouri v. Holland  United States Foreign Military operations
 Paquete Habana Financing
 Reid v. Covert  United States involvement in regime List of wars
 Schneider v. Rusk change
 Treaty Clause  United States military aid List of bases
 Unlawful combatant Manifest destiny

Policy and doctrine Non-interventionism
Overseas interventions
 United States and state terrorism
(allegations against the U.S.) Pax Americana
 Anti-Americanism
 American imperialism America's Backyard
 American exceptionalism
 Arctic policy of the United States Territorial acquisitions

21
  Bush Doctrine
 Carter Doctrine
 China containment policy
 Containment
 Détente
 Foreign policy of the Barack Obama
administration
 Human rights in the United States
 Kirkpatrick Doctrine
 Human Rights Record of the United
States (Chinese publication)
 Monroe Doctrine
 Nixon Doctrine
 Powell Doctrine
 Reagan Doctrine
 Special Relationship
 Truman Doctrine
 Criticism of American foreign policy
 History of U.S. foreign policy

References

1. Bureau of Economic Analysis,

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/pdf/gdp4q10_adv.pdf
2. U.S. Dept of State - Foreign Policy Agenda
3. Committee on Foreign Affairs: U.S. House of Representatives
4. James M. McCormick, American Foreign Policy and Process (2009) ch 7-8
5. George C. Herring, ''From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776
(2008)
6. Richard Russell, "American Diplomatic Realism: A Tradition Practised and Preached
by George F. Kennan," Diplomacy and Statecraft, Nov 2000, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp 159-
83
7. Oren, Michael B. (2005-11-03). "The Middle East and the Making of the United
States, 1776 to 1815".
8. Nikolas K. Gvosdev (2008-01-02). "FDR's Children". National Interest. Retrieved
2010-01-13. "Hachigian ... and Sutphen ... recognize that the global balance of power
is changing; that despite America's continued predominance, the other pivotal powers
"do challenge American dominance and impinge on the freedom of action the U.S. has
come to enjoy and expect." Rather than focusing on the negatives, however, they
believe that these six powers have the same vested interests: All are dependent on the
free flow of goods around the world and all require global stability in order to ensure
continued economic growth (and the prosperity it engenders)."
9. James, Wither (March 2006). "An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American
Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century". European Security 15 (1):
47–65. doi:10.1080/09662830600776694. ISSN 0966-2839.
10. US Department of State, Background Note on the United Kingdom
11. John Herd Thompson, and Stephen J. Randall, Canada and the United States:
Ambivalent Allies (4th ed. McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008) is the standard
scholarly survey
12. "5. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". International Monetary Fund. 2011-
11-09. Retrieved 2011-11-09. "15,064 billions (figure for 2011) 313 million persons"
22
13. "Canada". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2011-11-05.
14. Tim Padgett, "Mexico's Calderón Needs to Listen, Not Just Lecture U.S." TIME May
19, 2010 online
15. Burton Kirkwood, The History of Mexico (2010) pp 97-99, 138-52, 216
16. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/25/2525854.htm
17. "Q+A: Guyon Espiner interviews Kurt Campbell". Television New Zealand. October
11, 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2011.
18. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/aid2010.html Congress
Approves FY2010 Aid to Israel
19. http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-aid-tied-to-purchase-of-arms-20100101-llsb.html
US aid tied to purchase of arms
20. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11
21. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-206266-report-us-considers-withdrawing-
nuclear-bombs-from-turkey.html
22. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130093&page=1
23. Foster Rhea Dulles, Yankees and Samurai: America's Role in the Emergence of
Modern Japan, 1791-1900 (1965)
24. Walter LaFeber, The Clash: A History of US–Japan Relations (W.W. Norton, 1997)
25. "Japanese Prime Minister Meets With Obama, Says Economy Complicates North
Korea Talks". Washington Post. 2009-02-25. Retrieved 2013-01-24.
26. "Japan and United States Reaffirm Their Close Ties". New York Times. 2013-02-22.
Retrieved 2013-02-23.
27. Joint Statement by the United States and Japan
28. Jae Ho Chung, Between Ally and Partner: Korea-China Relations and the United
States (2008) excerpt and text search
29. http://seoul.usembassy.gov/rok_040209.html
30. Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, ed., Dangerous Strait: The U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis (2005)
31. ASEAN Matters for America ASEAN's Importance
32. ASEAN Matters for America US-ASEAN Relationship
33. Jakarta Post Editorial: The ASEAN cage
34. U.S.-Indonesia Military Relations in The Anti-Terror War
35. Indonesia: An Important Focus Point for World Security
36. US Eyes Indonesia, Vietnam as Potential Strategic Allies in Southeast Asia
37. Obama hails Indonesia as example for world
38. Obama delivers a speech in the University of Indonesia
39. "The EU's relations with Burma / Myanmar". European Union. Archived from the
original on 25 July 2006. Retrieved 2006-07-13.
40. The List: Burma’s Economic Lifelines. Foreign Policy. October 2007
41. TREATY OF GENERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. SIGNED AT MANILA, ON
4 JULY 1946, United Nations, retrieved 2007-12-10
42. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4166 - AN ACT CHANGING THE DATE OF PHILIPPINE
INDEPENDENCE DAY FROM JULY FOUR TO JUNE TWELVE, AND DECLARING
JULY FOUR AS PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC DAY, FURTHER AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE SECTION TWENTY-NINE OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE,
Chanrobles law library, August 4, 1964, retrieved 2008-06-11
43. Brewer, Susan (2009). Why America Fights: Patriotism and War Propaganda from
the Philippines to Iraq. New York: Oxford University press. ISBN 978-0195381351.

23
44. Bush Hails Kosovo Independence, U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International
Information Programs
45. Bush insists Kosovo must be independent and receives hero's welcome in Albania,
The Guardian
46. Gates Delivers Keynote Address to Open Asia Security Conference
47. Shanker, Tom. "Gates Talks of Boosting Asian Security Despite Budget Cuts." New
York Times, 1 June 2011.
48. Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
49. Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China Falls as Oil Prices Rise, Bloomberg.com
50. Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia, New York Times
51. The End of Cheap Oil, National Geographic
52. Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth
53. The war is about oil but it's not that simple, msnbc.com
54. The United States Navy and the Arabian Gulf
55. What if the Chinese were to apply the Carter Doctrine?, Haaretz - Israel News
56. Selling the Carter Doctrine, TIME
57. Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil, Times Online
58. Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq, The Guardian
59. See Energy Information Administration, "Canada" (2009 report)
60. http://www.agoa.gov/resources/US_African_Trade_Profile_2009.pdf
61. Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy
62. http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/colombia/us-military-aid-to-
colombia/page.do?id=1101863
63. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=226110
64. Fox News, 1 November 2004 Analysts Ponder U.S. Basing in Iraq
65. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40699.pdf Afghanistan: US foreign assistance
66. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Final_DP_2009_06_08092009.pdf Aid to
Pakistan
67. http://www.ciponline.org/facts/below_the_radar_eng.pdf
68. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33546.pdf Jordan: Background and U.S
relations
69. Federation of American Scientists. Missile Defense Milestones. Accessed March 10,
2006.
70. Johann Hari: Obama's chance to end the fantasy that is Star Wars, The Independent,
November 13, 2008
71. Historical Documents: Reagan's 'Star Wars' speech, CNN Cold War
72. "How Missile Defense Systems Will Work"
73. Missile defense backers now cite Russia threat
74. U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense, washingtonpost.com
75. Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech Republic
76. Europe diary: Missile defence, BBC News
77. Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe
78. Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield, Telegraph
79. China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn U.S. missile defense plans, International
Herald Tribune
80. Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence, The Guardian
81. U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense, USATODAY.com
82. Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal, The New York Times, August 15, 2008
83. Russia angry over U.S. missile shield, Al Jazeera English, August 15, 2008

24
84. Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de (Spring 2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't
Work". Hoover Digest 2. Also see this page.
85. Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of
Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391–402.
doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002.
86. Tures, John A. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via
United States Military Operations" (PDF). Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and
International Relations.PDF file.
87. Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States and Latin American Democracy:
Learning from History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 243–265.
88. Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 183. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.
89. Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of Military
Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International
Interactions 24 (2): 91–114. doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.
90. Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States
and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1, 4, 5. ISBN 0-8018-
4132-1.
91. Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America.
W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9.
92. Factors included limits on executive power, clear rules for the transition of power,
universal adult suffrage, and competitive elections.
93. Pei, Samia Amin (March 17, 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course".
International Herald Tribune.
94. Peceny, p. 186.
95. Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny.
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press. pp. 91–118. ISBN 0-8447-
3734-8.
96. Przeworski, Adam; Przeworski, Adam; Limongi Neto, Fernando Papaterra; Alvarez,
Michael M. (1996). "What Makes Democracy Endure" (– Scholar search). Journal of
Democracy 7 (1): 39–55. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0016.[dead link]
97. Peceny, p. 193
98. Peceny, p. 2
99. Review: Shifter, Michael; Peceny, Mark (Winter 2001). "Democracy at the Point of
Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society 43 (4): 150. doi:10.2307/3177036.
100. "Special Report: Secret History of the CIA in Iran". The New York Times. 2000.
101. Crabb, Cecil V.; Pat Holt (1992). Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President
and Foreign Policy (2nd ed.). Michigan: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 187–211.
ISBN 9780871876225.
102. Forsythe, David (1988). Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress
Reconsidered. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. pp. 1–23.
ISBN 9780813008851.
103. McVeigh, Karen (December 6, 2011). "Gay rights must be criterion for US aid
allocations, instructs Obama". The Guardian (London). Retrieved January 4,
2013.
104. Adomanis, Mark (December 19, 2013). "Barack Obama Is Right To Promote
Gay Rights In Russia, Now He Should Be Consistent". Forbes. Retrieved
December 25, 2013.
105. Bershidsky, Leonid (December 19, 2013). "Putin Plays Games to Salvage
Olympics". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved December 25, 2013.

25
 106. Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug
Producing Countries for Fiscal Year 2006
107. The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989. David F. Schmitz.
2006.
108. Do the sums, then compare U.S. and Communist crimes from the Cold War
Telegraph, 11/12/2005, Niall Ferguson
109. Give peace a rating May 31, 2007, from The Economist print edition
110. Japan ranked as world's 5th most peaceful nation: report Japan Today, May 31,
2007
111. Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-
07017-9. pp. 221–224, 314.
112. DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 1994. Online links: [1] [2] [3]
113. No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.
114. Caliendo, S.M. (1999). "All the News That's Fit to Print? New York Times
Coverage of Human-Rights Violations". The Harvard International Journal of
Press Politics 4: 48–69. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
115. Caliendo, Stephen. and Gibney, Mark. (2006). American Print Media Coverage
of Human Rights Violations. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
116. Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
117. Democracy
118. Clinton, Bill (January 28, 2000). "1994 State Of The Union Address". The
Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-01-22.
119. [4]
120. Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (2010-11-28). "Leaked Cables Offer Raw
Look at U.S. Diplomacy". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-12-26. "The
cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark
shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world.
..."
121. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
122. Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record
123. Human Rights Reports
124. [5]
125. [6]
126. [7]

Further reading

 Almond, Gabriel A. The American People and Foreign Policy, [reprinted from 1950 ed. with]
new introd. (F.A. Praeger, 1960).
 Bailey, Thomas. A Diplomatic History of the American People (10th ed. Prentice Hall, 1980)
 Borgwardt, Elizabeth. "A New Deal for the World" (Harvard UP, 2005)
 Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 4, America
in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945-1991 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
 Fawcett, Louise, ed. International Relations of the Middle East (3rd ed. Oxford U.P. 2013)
 Freedman, Lawrence. A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East
(PublicAffairs, 2009)
 Hastedt, Glenn P. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy (Facts on File, 2004)
 Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to
Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions 24 (2): 91–114.
doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.

26
  Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford
History of the United States) (2008)
 Hook, Steven W. and John Spanier. American Foreign Policy Since WWII (19th ed. 2012)
 Ikenberry, G. John, ed. American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays (6th ed. Wadsworth,
2010), 640pp; essays by scholars
 Iriye, Akira. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 3, The
Globalizing of America, 1913-1945 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
 Jentleson, Bruce W. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century
(4th ed. W. W. Norton, 2010)
 Jentleson, Bruce W. and Thomas G. Paterson, eds. Encyclopedia of U.S. Foreign Relations (4
vol 1997), long historical articles by scholars
 LaFeber, Walter. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: The American
Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913, vol. 2 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
 Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin
America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.
 McCormick, James M. et al. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and
Evidence (2012)
 McDougall, Walter. "Promised Land, Crusader State" (2004)
 Mead, Walter Russell, and Richard C. Leone. Special Providence: American Foreign Policy
and How It Changed the World (2002)
 Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of
Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391–402.
doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002. JSTOR 424565.
 Nichols, Christopher McKnight. "Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age"
(2011)
 Paterson, Thomas G. and others. American Foreign Relations (6th ed. 2 vol, Wadsworth,
2004), a detailed history
 Perkins, Bradford. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 1, The
Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776-1865 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
 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.
 Wittkopf, Eugene R. et al. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process (2007)

External links

 History of the United States’ relations with the countries of the world
 Milestones of U.S. diplomatic history
 Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS): Official Documentary History of U.S. Foreign
Relations
 Foreign Relations and International Aid from UCB Libraries G
 U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy, a background Q&A by Council on Foreign Relations
 Foreign Relations of the United States 1861-1960 (full text from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison Libraries)
 Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index Tracking survey of American public attitudes on
foreign policy, conducted by Public Agenda with Foreign Affairs magazine.
 An interactive map of some examples of a sampling of U.S. Foreign Policy
 Analysis of Congressional-Executive Agreements (Article by Steve Charnovitz from the
American Journal of International Law)
 A PDF file of the Congressional Research Service report, Library of Congress, Treaties and
other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate
 Rethinking U.S. Aid from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
 Peter Gowan interview on U.S. foreign policy since 1945

27
 Public policy of the United States

Foreign relations of the United States

Bilateral relations

 Algeria
 Angola
 Benin
 Botswana
 Burkina Faso
 Burundi
 Cameroon
 Cape Verde
 Central African Republic
 Chad
 Comoros
 Democratic Republic of the Congo
Africa
 Republic of the Congo
 Djibouti
 Egypt
 Equatorial Guinea
 Eritrea
 Ethiopia
 Gabon
 The Gambia
 Ghana
 Guinea
 Guinea-Bissau
 Ivory Coast

28
 Kenya
 Lesotho
 Liberia
 Libya
 Madagascar
 Malawi
 Mali
 Mauritania
 Mauritius
 Morocco
 Mozambique
 Namibia
 Niger
 Nigeria
 Rwanda
 São Tomé and Príncipe
 Senegal
 Seychelles
 Sierra Leone
 Somalia
 South Africa
 South Sudan
 Sudan
 Swaziland
 Tanzania
 Togo
 Tunisia
 Uganda
 Zambia
 Zimbabwe

29
  Armenia
 Azerbaijan
 Bahrain
 Cyprus
 Egypt
 Georgia
 Iran
 Iraq
 Israel
o military relations
 Jordan
West Asia
 Kuwait
 Lebanon
 Oman
 Palestine
Asia  Qatar
 Saudi Arabia
 Syria
 Turkey
 United Arab Emirates
 Yemen

 Afghanistan
 Bangladesh
 India
 Kazakhstan
South/Central Asia  Kyrgyzstan
 Maldives
 Nepal
 Pakistan
 Sri Lanka

30
  Tajikistan
 Turkmenistan
 Uzbekistan

 Brunei
 Burma
 Cambodia
 China
o Hong Kong
o Macau
 East Timor
 Indonesia
 Japan
 North Korea
East/Southeast Asia
 South Korea
 Laos
 Malaysia
 Mongolia
 Philippines
 Russia
 Singapore
 Taiwan
 Thailand
 Vietnam

 Albania
 Andorra
 Austria
Europe
 Belarus
 Belgium
 Bosnia and Herzegovina

31
 Bulgaria
 Croatia
 Czech Republic
 Denmark
 Estonia
 Finland
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Hungary
 Iceland
 Ireland
 Italy
 Kosovo
 Latvia
 Liechtenstein
 Lithuania
 Luxembourg
 Macedonia
 Malta
 Moldova
 Monaco
 Montenegro
 Netherlands
 Norway
 Poland
 Portugal
 Romania
 Russia
 San Marino
 Serbia

32
  Slovakia
 Slovenia
 Spain
 Sweden
 Switzerland
 Ukraine
 United Kingdom
 Vatican City

 Antigua and Barbuda

 Aruba
 Bahamas
 Barbados
 Bermuda
 Cayman Islands
 Cuba
 Dominica
Caribbean
 Dominican Republic
 Grenada
 Haiti
North America
 Jamaica
 St. Kitts and Nevis
 St. Lucia
 St. Vincent and the Grenadines
 Trinidad and Tobago

 Belize
 Canada
Elsewhere o trade relations
 Costa Rica
 El Salvador

33
  Guatemala
 Honduras
 Mexico
 Nicaragua
 Panama

 Australia
ANZUS  New Zealand

 Cook Islands
 Fiji
 Kiribati
 Marshall Islands
 Micronesia
Oceania
 Nauru
 Palau
Elsewhere
 Papua New Guinea
 Samoa
 Solomon Islands
 Tonga
 Tuvalu
 Vanuatu

 Argentina
 Bolivia
 Brazil
 Chile
South America
 Colombia
 Ecuador
 Guyana
 Paraguay

34
  Peru
 Suriname
 Uruguay
 Venezuela

 Kingdom of Hawaii
 Netherlands Antilles
 Republic of Texas
Former states
 Russian Empire
 Soviet Union

Multilateral relations

Doctrines, policies, concepts

 Proclamation of Neutrality
 Monroe
 Roosevelt Corollary
 Good Neighbor policy
 Truman
 Eisenhower
 Kennedy
Presidential
doctrines  Johnson
 Nixon
 Carter
 Reagan
 Clinton
 Bush
 Obama

35
  Lodge Corollary
 Stimson
 Kirkpatrick
 Weinberger
Other doctrines
 Powell
 Rumsfeld
 Wolfowitz

 Blowback
 Containment
 Domino theory
Policies and  Progressive realism
concepts
 Rollback
 Special Relationship
 Taiwan Relations Act

36