Foreign Policy

INTRODUCTION

Foreign Policy, a course of action or set of principles adopted by a nation’s government to define its
relations with other countries or groups of countries. A country’s foreign policy also sets forth its
positions on a wide range of international issues. A country’s foreign policy may reflect broad national
objectives or represent a narrow and specific response to a particular situation. A country can achieve
its foreign policy goals in several ways. It can use diplomacy—that is, peaceful negotiations with other
countries. It can employ economic actions such as giving money or other aid to another country, or it
can restrict trade with that nation or impose economic sanctions on it. It also can resort to military
force.

A country’s foreign policy can be influenced by many variables, including its historical alliances with
other nations, its culture, type of government, size, geographic location, economic ties, and military
power. A country’s foreign policy is usually aimed at preserving or promoting its economic and political
interests abroad and its position in the world.

The analysis of foreign policy has traditionally focused on government actions, particularly those related
to political and military issues. But in recent decades the focus has changed. Today many
nongovernmental groups or organizations, known as NGOs, play an important role in foreign policy.
Groups as diverse as Amnesty International, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for human rights,
and al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States in
2001, enlarge the number of foreign policy actors in the world today. Foreign policy actions are also
initiated by organizations representing a group of governments, such as the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), a multinational defense alliance that includes, among others, the United Kingdom,
France, and the United States. Organizations such as the North American Free Trade Association
(NAFTA), an economic organization of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and the United Nations
(UN), a global organization of more than 190 nations, also play a role in setting foreign policy. These
groups and organizations have adopted foreign policies on a wider range of issues than in the past,
including human rights, trade, peacekeeping, and arms control. As a result, the array of foreign policy
issues has become increasingly diverse.
The rest of this article focuses on foreign policy in the United States. See also American Foreign Policy.

Under the Constitution of the United States, both the Congress of the United States and the president
have the responsibility of setting U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. Constitution also dictates that some of that
power be shared between the two. In general, the president shapes foreign policy, with the advice of
the secretary of state and the Department of State, but the president also has numerous other national
security officials in the executive branch to assist in shaping foreign policy. Congress approves the
funding needed to carry out that policy. The U.S. Senate must also approve any treaties initiated by the
president by a two-thirds vote. In addition, U.S. Congress can criticize actions the president and
administration have carried out, and U.S. Congress has, from time to time, imposed restrictions on U.S.
foreign policy actions.

The dividing line between the power of the president and that of U.S. Congress to set foreign policy is
not always clear. As a result, U.S. Congress and the president have sometimes struggled for that
authority throughout various periods of American history. But since the end of World War II in 1945, the
president has been generally recognized as having the principal authority to create foreign policy. Both
U.S. Congress and the courts have deferred to the president on foreign policy questions. Political parties,
special interests groups, and public opinion have generally played a secondary role.

II. IN THE EARLY UNITED STATES

Since early in American history, presidents have dominated foreign policy. President George Washington
set the country’s early approach to foreign policy in his Farewell Address of 1796, which he gave upon
leaving office. In that address, Washington called on the United States to adopt a policy of isolationism
and avoid forming alliances with other nations. Washington wanted to protect the new nation from
foreign influences and encourage greater domestic development. In 1823 President James Monroe
echoed Washington’s warning in a message sent to U.S. Congress. The message, known as the Monroe
Doctrine, said the United States should stay out of European affairs and warned European nations not to
interfere with the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. Other early American presidents also significantly
influenced the nation’s foreign policy. For example, James K. Polk expanded the American border to the
south and west.
III. IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY

HISTORIC SPEECHES

America’s rise as a major world power began at the close of the 19th century. In 1898 United States
president William McKinley finally yielded to popular support for Cuba’s independence from Spain,
asking Congress to declare war against Spain. The request came after the sinking of the U.S. battleship
Maine in Havana harbor, but to avoid charges of American imperialism, Congress also passed an
amendment forbidding future U.S. control over Cuba. Yet the growing interest in extending U.S.
influence abroad prompted President McKinley to bow to public opinion once more by annexing the
Philippines. Herbert S. ParmetApril 11, 1898

In the 20th century, presidents continued to set foreign policy, and their power grew significantly. For
example, in 1898 President William McKinley led the nation into the Spanish-American War, despite the
country’s previous policy of isolationism. He justified American involvement on moral grounds. The
United States was supporting Cuba’s fight for independence from Spain. President Theodore Roosevelt
further expanded American involvement abroad with actions in Latin America and elsewhere. He
supported a revolt in Panama against Colombian rule in 1903 that led to an independent Panamanian
government. The new government signed a treaty granting the United States the right to build the
Panama Canal, a major trade route in Central America connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. As a
result of these actions, the presidency grew in stature and U.S. influence in global affairs also increased.

HISTORIC DOCUMENTS

The Roosevelt Corollary

United States president Theodore Roosevelt announced the Roosevelt Corollary, an addendum to the
1823 Monroe Doctrine, in response to European nations that were trying to force Venezuela to repay its
debts. Roosevelt threatened to send naval ships to Venezuela if those nations sought to forcibly collect
the debt. Stability must be preserved, Roosevelt said in his 1904 annual message to Congress, even if it
requires an “exercise of international police power.” The Roosevelt Corollary, based on the 1901 Platt
Amendment, became the cornerstone of U.S. policy in Latin America. Herbert S. Parmet
IV. DURING THE WORLD WARS

HISTORIC SPEECHES

Wilson Appeals for Neutrality

The start of war in Europe in 1914 caught most Americans by surprise. Their president, Woodrow
Wilson, shared their desire to avoid any involvement. Wilson’s public response to the war on August 9,
1914, after a proclamation of neutrality two weeks earlier, reflects the relative detachment of the
United States from world affairs at that time. Despite his pro-British sympathies, Wilson urged the public
to remain neutral “in thought as well as in action.” Events over the next two and a half years showed the
futility of that position in the modern world. Herbert S. Parmet

President Woodrow Wilson also used moral grounds to justify U.S. involvement in World War I (1914-
1918). Wilson led the country into war saying he wanted “to make the world safe for democracy.” After
World War I ended, Wilson supported the effort to create the League of Nations, an international
organization designed to promote peace and cooperation between nations. When the Senate rebuffed
Wilson’s attempt to have the United States join the League, the pendulum of foreign policymaking
shifted to U.S. Congress for a time.

HISTORIC SPEECHES

The Four Freedoms

Before Pearl Harbor, few speeches stirred Americans more deeply than United States president Franklin
D. Roosevelt’s statement of wartime objectives, delivered as part of his annual message to Congress in
1941. In this address he argued that America must uphold certain basic human principles that have
come to be known as the Four Freedoms. Roosevelt also called for concrete action, such as the Lend-
Lease program, to provide military and economic aid to nations fighting Axis powers. The speech
became a lasting guide to the noble purposes of a democracy in a world menaced by evil. Herbert S.
Parmet
President Franklin D. Roosevelt reestablished the power of the presidency to set foreign policy and led
the United States into World War II (1939-1945). After the war, the United States abandoned its policy
of isolationism. The country recognized the need for allies to maintain its position in the world.

V. EFFECT OF THE COLD WAR

HISTORIC DOCUMENTS

The Truman Doctrine

By proposing a program of $400 million in military and economic aid to back anti-Communist forces in
Turkey and Greece, United States President Harry Truman created a prime model for Cold War
containment of Communism. Truman’s critics claimed that he was being unduly alarmist for suggesting
that the effect of failure would be “far reaching to the West as well as to the East,” and some also
blamed his words for promoting anti-Communist hysteria in the United States. Most U.S. historians,
however, view his response as an appropriate reaction to Soviet expansionism. Herbert S. Parmet

The direction of U.S. foreign policy was affected further by the onset of the Cold War, the post-1945
struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. In March 1947, when President Harry S.
Truman announced that the United States would lead a global effort to combat Communism, both U.S.
Congress and the American public rallied to his support. Truman’s new policy later became known as the
Truman Doctrine. Truman instituted a policy of containment to thwart Soviet expansion efforts. That
policy led the United States into forging a series of military alliances around the world. The country also
started to provide substantial amounts of foreign aid to friendly nations, and to alert the American
public and the world to the perceived dangers of Communism. Truman’s policy led the United States
into a series of conflicts, including the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1959-1975).
HISTORIC DOCUMENTS

U.S. Policy During the Cold War

In 1950, following the Communist victory in China, United States president Harry S. Truman requested a
thorough review of national security policy. The report Truman received on strategic policy and military
programs, known as National Security Council Resolution Number 68 (NSC-68), proposed that the
United States take a greater role in containing Communism. Its authors planned to “wrest the initiative
from the Soviet Union” by an active program of counterforce that required greater military spending.
From a historical perspective, the report seems to have overestimated the solidarity among Communist
nations. Herbert S. Parmet

HISTORIC SPEECHES

Kennedy on Nuclear Safeguards

The 1962 Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the edge of nuclear war and led to popular support
for safeguards on nuclear weapons, including limits on radioactive fallout from atmospheric testing. On
June 10, 1963, United States president John F. Kennedy spoke at American University in Washington,
D.C., about the need to halt the arms race. “We all breathe the same air,” the president said. “We all
cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” The speech became a link between the missile
crisis and the subsequent Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, in which the United States, Britain, and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) agreed to stop nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere and
underwater. Herbert S. Parmet

VI. THE VIETNAM WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH

HISTORIC SPEECHES

Nixon's “Silent Majority” Speech

In November 1969 United States president Richard Nixon responded to mounting criticism of the war in
Vietnam by trying to undercut demonstrators who had recently staged a nationwide day of protest. In a
television address to the American people, Nixon contrasted the antiwar dissidents with “the great
silent majority” who, he claimed, supported U.S. objectives in Vietnam. Nixon planned to achieve his
campaign goal of “peace with honor” in Vietnam by gradually shifting the burden of the fighting to the
South Vietnamese. He believed that this would make the war more acceptable at home. Herbert S.
Parmet

The long and unsuccessful war in Vietnam challenged the direction of U.S. foreign policy and the power
of the president to conduct it. During the war, an estimated 2 million Vietnamese and 57,685 Americans
were killed. Many Americans were horrified by those losses. The war sparked antiwar protests that
sometimes turned violent, as well as intense criticism about the waste of money and human life. After
the war, the United States reduced its role in global affairs for a time, and U.S. Congress sought to
reassert its authority in setting foreign policy.

HISTORIC SPEECHES

Reagan Doctrine

“We must stand by all our democratic allies,” United States president Ronald Reagan said in his State of
the Union address in 1985. By “democratic,” he was referring to anti-Communist countries. Reagan, who
had already called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) an evil empire, dispensed with fine
ideological distinctions and proclaimed a strategy far more activist than just containing Communism. His
aim was to aid groups that would root out and destroy any political movement that appeared to support
the Soviet Union. Herbert S. Parmet

The country’s diminished involvement in world affairs did not last long. President Ronald Reagan
reasserted presidential authority in foreign policy during his time in office from 1981 to 1989. He called
for the United States to once again challenge Soviet domination worldwide.

But bigger changes were yet to come. In the early 1990s the Soviet Union dissolved, and the Cold War
ended. The United States no longer needed policies aimed at containing the spread of Soviet
Communism. The country was faced with developing a new foreign policy. The “liberal internationalist”
approach adopted by the administration of President Bill Clinton sought to maintain America’s global
involvement, support free trade to enhance U.S. and global prosperity, and promote the spread of
democracy to ensure international peace and security. That policy met with some success, especially in
opening up the global economy through several free trade agreements. Yet the approach also had to
address dangerous ethnic and religious rivalries in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo. The
implementation of the Clinton doctrine, which called for U.S. interventions in humanitarian crises
around the world, received a more mixed response at home and abroad. As a result, the George W.
Bush administration initially sought to limit U.S. involvement globally and to pursue a foreign policy that
emphasized national interests. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and on
the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001, changed all that.

9/11 CHALLENGES

HISTORIC DOCUMENTS

The Bush Doctrine

In September 2002 the administration of United States president George W. Bush outlined a radically
new foreign policy. Known as the Bush doctrine, it sought to prevent other nations from obtaining
weapons of mass destruction by adopting a policy of preemptive war (striking first). It also announced
that the United States would maintain unquestioned military supremacy by not allowing any other
nation to emerge as a potential military rival. The Bush doctrine removed two key pillars that held U.S.
foreign policy in place for more than 50 years: the policy of deterrence, which sought to prevent a
nuclear attack by threatening massive retaliation and the policy of containment, which held that U.S.
military forces needed only to be strong enough to contain any aggressor. Critics characterized the new
stance as an arrogant statement of power that threatened to alienate world opinion and jeopardize the
role of international institutions such as the United Nations (UN).

The events of September 11 had a profound effect on the Bush administration and U.S. foreign policy.
They also affected the attitudes of the American public toward foreign policy and the level of
congressional and public support for the president on foreign policy issues.

The events of September 11 increased the public’s support for a more assertive approach toward
actions in the global arena and enhanced congressional deference to the president. They also motivated
the president to take more interest and control over the conduct of foreign policy. All of these things
produced a new U.S. foreign policy strategy. That strategy was designed to fight and defeat “terrorists
and tyrants” worldwide, especially those with access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). To carry
out this strategy, the United States embarked on a comprehensive global effort, utilizing alliances,
international organizations, and an informal “coalition of the willing.” Significantly, the United States
reserved to itself the right of taking preventive action against these adversaries, if necessary—that is,
launching military attacks without evidence of an imminent threat. American actions against the Taliban
and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and against Saddam Hussein in the U.S.-Iraq War illustrate two important
instances of applying this strategy.

The Bush doctrine, as this strategy came to be called, represented a substantial change in approach
from that adopted in the immediate post-Cold War era and from the foreign policy approach that
George W. Bush initially embraced upon becoming president. At the same time, the Bush doctrine bore
some similarity to the kind of foreign policy pursued by the United States at the height of the Cold War.
Much like the Cold War years, the antiterrorist strategy is universal in scope and moral in content. In
both eras, U.S. policymakers sought to steer a clear and consistent policy course by focusing on a
singular target or goal. Both eras, too, relied significantly on the use of U.S. military capabilities and on
the willingness of the United States to act alone if necessary.

The Bush doctrine has received both criticism and support for these very characteristics. Among critics,
it is perceived as too unilateralist, especially in an age of globalization and multilateralism. It is also seen
as too ideological, especially when it sets the United States at odds with its traditional allies and friends,
and too dependent on military capabilities, especially when political, social, and economic actions are
also crucial to combating the terrorist threat (see Counterterrorism). Other critics pointed to U.S.
“bullying” of other nations to achieve its goals and questioned the validity of the data to support it—for
example, the lack of supporting evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Among supporters, the Bush doctrine’s clarity of purpose and its singular focus on the principal
international threat today are important sources of its strength. Supporters say the strategy aims to
preserve human dignity, a fundamental American value, against the dangers of terrorism and tyrants
and to build a “balance of power that favors freedom” against these forces. Furthermore, the nature of
the threat justifies U.S. unilateral action, including the reliance upon military means. Since terrorists and
tyrants—especially if they gain access to weapons of mass destruction—represent the greatest threat to
international peace and stability, the United States has little choice but to act alone if others will not.
Because some forces hostile to the United States can only be deterred or defeated through military
means, the United States must rely upon these capabilities.

Several domestic and international challenges thus confront the implementation of this new U.S. foreign
policy strategy. Will the American public and policymakers continue to embrace this new strategy and
continue to allow the president broad discretion in carrying it out? Will the international community
support the often-singular focus of this new U.S. policy? Or will the policy produce the opposite
outcome that it sought—by undermining confidence in U.S. leadership and weakening global efforts to
address the numerous transnational threats, including the terrorist threat.