Course: POLT 3310

Student: Dilnora Tursunova

Professor: Joseph Cernik
First Essay: American Foreign Policy since the Vietnam War

According to Edward Shils (1974), the consensus is a particular state of the belief system of the

majority part of the society, which is concerned with making decisions about the allocation of

authority, status, rights, law and income. Consensus gives society the feeling of unity so it is

important to have mutual consensus between power and its people. Political consensus is even

hard to achieve due to the division of a variety of opinions of the nation about the political values

of the state, which can turn into internal disputes and conflicts. As regard the US, the term

“consensus” is also well known because of the common usage by presidents, advisors, members

of Congress and for sure, the media. In the post-Vietnam war period, especially Nixon and all

further presidents tried to achieve the census for both domestic and foreign policy, but searching

for it often could lead to doctrinal and moralistic foreign policy which is not served American

interests. In this essay, I am going to highlight the differences between the six presidents towards

foreign policy, explain my viewpoint on national interest and give a general opinion about the

following textbook.

Starting with Nixon’s administration which took power in 1969, being the first Republican

president after a long break, he inherited a very hard situation in international policy from

Johnson’s. He was the first generation to start formulating both domestic issues which arise such

as poverty and unemployment as well as build foreign policy without national consensus.

Starting from the Eisenhour's presidency period, Nixon was one of the loyal partisans,

specifically Republicans who supported each decision has been made since 1946. Later on, he
found himself in the middle of a national crisis, being president of the superpower. Nixon by

temperament was described as a “risk-taker” leader who used this skill for both domestic and

foreign policy, unlike his predecessors who preferred to maintain the “middle way” or

“American life”. For example, despite his decision to take back the US troops from Vietnam

being criticised, Nixon decided to give a remarkable speech where he mentioned negotiations

with North Vietnam and asked “silent great majority Americans” to vote for the poll that showed

a positive response for “just and lasting peace”. After it, he received immense support from both

the Senate and the White House which led to finalising Vietnam War only in 1975. Except for

this, there were other issues arising in the international arena which required the US attention

such as the Soviet Union and China or Arab-Israel conflicts. After the decline of the moral

importance of America, most of the nation would prefer the isolation period, but Nixon had

another plan, which was improving mutual relations with the Soviet Union and China. Because

of the ongoing nuclear threat, Nixon hoped to receive credit for his effort to maintain good

relations with both communist states. In 1972, he first visited China to normalize the long-

neglected communication as well as went to Moscow to sign Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty

(SALT I). Although Nixon initially started the process of détente, the international climate

overall did not improve. One of Nixon’s values was formulating “balance and equilibrium” and a

“full generation of peace” seemed to be as giving up on American interest for the majority of the

elite, democrats and republicans too. Along with Nixon’s doctrine and starting point of détente,

during his presidency period, no attention was paid to public education, technology development

or environmental issues. By the mid-1970s Nixon-Kissinger's policy was to adjust the new

reality of the new world, later “new” Congress started to shape which was sceptical towards

presidents' prerogatives, more democratized and new form of policymaking. Nixon-Form period
experienced mostly changes in procedures than the substance of American Policy (Melanson,

2005).

Continue with Kimmy Carter elected in 1977, whose approach to foreign policy was different

from Nixon’s. As Carter not once mentioned that a nation’s foreign policy should reflect its

highest moral principles, which showed that he is not willing to repeat the “mistakes” made by

former leaders. “For too many years, we’ve been willing to adopt the flawed and erroneous

principles and tactics of our adversaries, sometimes abandoning our values for theirs” - Carter

said (1977). Unlike his predecessor, Carter was not afraid to be critical about the sending of

troops to Vietnam, which led to the deprivation of national morals as well as harsh on South

Korea, Iran and South Africa. Also, he believed that the American people lost confidence in the

government, the most important thing to restore the trustworthy government, which was a very

different position from Nixon and Johnson who were much isolated from the people. There were

specific points to focus on the foreign policy of the US for Carter, which mostly was formulated

by advisor Brzezinski. Carter aimed to cooperate with industrial democracies and reintegrate

Greece into NATO, coordinate Western power over Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union;

establish new connections with newly establishing powers like Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Iran;

develop North-South relations and diminish the influence of Soviet Union; prevent conflicts and

radicalization of the Arab world in the Middle East and push Soviet Union to accept SALT II, as

Carter believed that in the first attempt of the treaty American interest was deferred. Indeed, in

some way, Carter was able to follow this vision, for example, his open letter to Andrey Zakharov

(Secretary Vance) revealed instructions for SALT negations before the trip to Moscow and the

building was quite successful diplomatic relations. Later Brezhnev and Carter signed SALT II, a

nuclear arms control agreement. Carter paid special attention to the Middle East and facilitating
the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt was a great example of progress in

Middle East relations. Along with changes in the legislative-executory process, conducting

foreign policy became complicated. Also, the power and popularity decline of Carter’s

presidency correlated with major issues, such as the Iranian revolution or the oil crisis, which

was referred to “moral and spiritual crisis”. In my opinion, Carter tried to achieve a consensus

with domestic policy more than former leaders, with some lackings.

Moving to Ronald Reagan who was the most popular president for several decades offered to cut

taxes and domestic social spending was appealing to most Americans and conservative

Republicans for a long time. As a Republican, in terms of domestic policy, he continued Nixon’s

idea of a “new majority” made up of people who disliked New Class liberals. Unlike Nixon,

Reagan was able to structure and carry it on well. Using Wilson’s internationalism, at the same

time Reagan paid special attention to concerns like terrorism. While Carter was famous for his

mentions of human rights, Reagan aimed to flourish democracy and end communism. As Carter

attempted to restore the morality of American foreign policy, Reagan once noted that American

foreign policy always has been moral enough and his plan aimed to establish a democratic world.

For example, he decided on the expansion of communism in Latin America, especially in El-

Salvador and Cuba, yet the branches of government; the White House, State Department and

Congress could not come up with certification of assistance to El Salvador. There was

disagreement over the alliance with China’s strategic association, and Reagan decided to stay

loyal support to Taiwan which severed the bilateral relation. After long negotiations, the US and

China signed a joint communiqué on Taiwan in which the United States agreed to limit arms

sales and China agreed to seek a “peaceful solution.” (Historian, 2023). Reagan was the
president who officially declared that Cold War with the Soviet Union has come to end in 1988,

after signing an agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Next, unlike the previous presidents, Bush devoted his efforts mostly to foreign policy rather

than domestic affairs. At first, he decided to take a passive approach in the post-Cold War period

to observe the further decisions of Garbachev to ensure that there is no nuclear threat, the so-

called “pause” period which later improved Soviet-US relations. After the New World order

ideas within the unification of Germany and support for Gorbachev’s reforms, Bush came across

with Iraq crisis. After the invasion of the US troops into Iraq, opinions were divided into positive

and negative towards Bush’s foreign policy. The same happened when the US decided to obtain

with the Yugoslavia conflict which led to a massive civil war. Overall, President Bush's

approach to foreign policy was conservative and pragmatism, which led to much less attention

given to domestic affairs.

Bill Clinton came to the power with less experience in foreign policy than a previous leader and

a much more difficult period when the Soviet Union collapsed and uncertainty of post-Cold War

appeared. Clinton was criticized for not taking back the troops from Somalia and Rwanda which

were sent by former president Bush. Ethnic wars among minorities of Europe in the Balkans

were another issue for Clinton so he decided to send peacekeeping troops there, after NATO

bombed areas of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. Clinton's forceful stand in Bosnia and Kosovo

enhanced his foreign policy resume (Miller Center, 2023). In dealing with the former Soviet

Union, another achievement of Clinton was that there was no threat of nuclear power was almost

finished between superpowers. Overall, Clinton’s foreign policy was focused on regional

conflicts during the technological improvements of the military, to control nuclear and

biochemical weapons.
To sum up, for a long time American national interest was to spread its influence to other

countries, altering the Soviet impact, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe. All of the

presidents tried to be loyal to their high morals, such as freedom, democracy and justice. The

textbook is well written and explains the importance of consensus between domestic and foreign

affairs. Another specific point is the given special attention to each president during this period

and the broad explanation with comparisons. I have learnt a lot about the foreign policy of the

US, and still, I would love to see some changes. I noticed that there is less attention given to the

other side of the coin, for example, the economic-driven goals of the US in foreign policy. As

well as it would be great if the book showed the critiques that the US obtained after the

intervention in Iraq or the bombing of Serbia and the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

References:

Melson (2015). American Foreign Policy since Vietnam War.

Historian (2023). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments