text:
Foreign policy of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America
Federal Government[show]
Constitution of the United States
Law
Taxation
Legislature[show]
United States Congress
House of Representatives
Speaker Paul Ryan (R)
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R)
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D)
Congressional districts
United States Senate
President Mike Pence (R)
President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch (R)
President Pro Tempore Emeritus Patrick Leahy (D)
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D)
Executive[show]
President of the United States
Donald Trump (R)
Vice President of the United States
Mike Pence (R)
Cabinet
Federal agencies
Executive Office
Judiciary[show]
Supreme Court of the United States
Chief Justice John Roberts
Kennedy
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Alito
Sotomayor
Kagan
Gorsuch
Courts of Appeals
District Courts (list)
Other tribunals
Elections[show]
Presidential elections
Midterm elections
Off-year elections
Political parties[show]
Democratic
Republican
Third parties
Federalism[show]
State Government
Governors
Legislatures (List)
State courts
Local government
Other countries
Atlas
v
t
e
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 system citizens of the United States.
The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, including all the Bureaus and Offices in the United States Department of State,[1] as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the 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 interaction 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
[hide]
1 Powers of the President
2 Powers of the Congress
3 Historical overview
3.1 20th century
3.1.1 World War I
3.1.2 World War II
3.1.3 Cold War
3.2 21st century
4 Law
5 International agreements
5.1 Economic and general government
5.2 Freely Associated States
5.3 Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements
5.4 Hub and spoke vs multilateral
6 Oil
6.1 Persian Gulf
6.2 Canada
6.3 Africa
7 Foreign aid
8 Military
8.1 Mutual defense agreements
8.2 Other allies and multilateral organizations
8.3 Unilateral vs. multilateral military actions
8.4 Aid
8.5 Missile defense
8.6 Exporting democracy
8.6.1 Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy
8.6.2 Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results
8.6.3 Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy
9 Global opinion
10 Covert actions
11 Influencing foreign elections
12 Human rights
13 War on Drugs
14 Criticism
15 Support
16 By country or region
16.1 United Kingdom
16.2 Canada
16.3 Mexico
16.4 Australia
16.5 Middle East
16.6 Japan
16.7 South Korea
16.8 China
16.9 Taiwan
16.10 ASEAN
16.10.1 Indonesia
16.10.2 Malaysia
16.10.3 Myanmar
16.10.4 Philippines
16.10.5 Thailand
16.10.6 Vietnam
16.11 Eastern Europe
16.12 Kosovo
17 See also
17.1 Constitutional and international law
17.2 Diplomacy
17.3 Intelligence
17.4 Military
17.5 Policy and doctrine
18 References
19 Further reading
20 External links
Powers of the President[edit]
Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President of the United States negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force 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. Both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The United States Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.
Powers of the Congress[edit]
The U.S. 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
Congress is the only branch of government that has the authority to declare war. Furthermore, Congress writes the civilian and military budget, thus has vast power in military action and foreign aid. Congress also has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.[4]
Historical overview[edit]
Main articles: History of U.S. foreign policy and Timeline of United States diplomatic history
The Jay Treaty of 1795 aligned the U.S. more with Britain and 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, U.S. 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 Jeffersonian 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.
Jeffersonians vigorously opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801.[7]
Despite two wars with European Powers—the War of 1812 and the 1898 Spanish–American War—American foreign policy was peaceful and marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade during the 19th century. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled the nation's geographical area; Spain ceded the territory of Florida in 1819; annexation brought in the independent Texas Republic in 1845; a war with Mexico in 1848 added California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. The U.S. bought Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, and it annexed the independent 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 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[edit]
World War I[edit]
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 was developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism so as to end any 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. Operating outside the League it became a dominant player in diplomatic affairs. New York became the financial capital of the world,[8] but the Wall Street Crash of 1929 hurled the Western industrialized 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[edit]
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, 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[edit]
Main article: 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.
In domestic politics, foreign policy is not usually a central issue. In 1945–1970 the Democratic Party took a strong anti-Communist line and supported wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then the party split with a strong dovish element (typified by 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern). Many "hawks" joined the Neoconservative movement and started supporting the Republicans—especially Reagan—based on foreign policy.[9] Meanwhile, down to 1952 the Republican Party was split between an isolationist wing, based in the Midwest and led by Senator Robert A. Taft, and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely on foreign policy grounds. Since then the Republicans have been characterized by a hawkish and intense American nationalism, and strong opposition to Communism, and strong support for Israel.[10]
21st century[edit]
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.[11]
In 2017 diplomats from other countries developed new tactics to deal with President Donald Trump. The New York Times reported on the eve of his first foreign trip as president:
For foreign leaders trying to figure out the best way to approach an American president unlike any they have known, it is a time of experimentation. Embassies in Washington trade tips and ambassadors send cables to presidents and ministers back home suggesting how to handle a mercurial, strong-willed leader with no real experience on the world stage, a preference for personal diplomacy and a taste for glitz....certain rules have emerged: Keep it short — no 30-minute monologue for a 30-second attention span. Do not assume he knows the history of the country or its major points of contention. Compliment him on his Electoral College victory. Contrast him favorably with President Barack Obama. Do not get hung up on whatever was said during the campaign. Stay in regular touch. Do not go in with a shopping list but bring some sort of deal he can call a victory.[12]
Law[edit]
Main articles: Treaty and Treaty Clause
In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:
Executive agreements
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.[13]
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 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.[citation needed]
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 afterward. 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.[citation needed]
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.
International agreements[edit]
The United States has ratified and participates in many other multilateral treaties, including arms control treaties (especially with the Soviet Union), human rights treaties, environmental protocols, and free trade agreements.
Further information: List of United States treaties
Economic and general government[edit]
The United States is a founding member of the United Nations and most of its specialized agencies, notably including the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund. The U.S. has at times has withheld payment of dues due to disagreements with the UN.
The United States is also member of:
Organization of American States
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OECD)
NAFTA, the regional trade bloc with Canada and Mexico
World Trade Organization
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
Group of Seven (G7)
World Customs Organization
Freely Associated States[edit]
After it captured the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986 (1994 for Palau). The Northern Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory (part of the United States), while Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau became independent countries. Each has signed a Compact of Free Association that gives the United States exclusive military access in return for U.S. defense protection and conduct of military foreign affairs (except the declaration of war) and a few billion dollars of aid. These agreements also generally allow citizens of these countries to live and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provide for largely free trade. The federal government also grants access to services from domestic agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Weather Service, the United States Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and U.S. representation to the International Frequency Registration Board of the International Telecommunication Union.
Further information: Associated state
Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements[edit]
The United States notably does not participate in various international agreements adhered to by almost all other industrialized countries, by almost all the countries of the Americas, or by almost all other countries in the world. With a large population and economy, on a practical level this can undermine the effect of certain agreements,[14][15] or give other countries a precedent to cite for non-participation in various agreements.[16]
In some cases the arguments against participation include that the United States should maximize its sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create a basis for lawsuits that would treat American citizens unfairly.[17] In other cases, the debate became involved in domestic political issues, such as gun control, climate change, and the death penalty.
Examples include:
Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations covenant (in force 1920–45, signed but not ratified)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (took effect in 1976, ratified with substantial reservations)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (took effect in 1976, signed but not ratified)
American Convention on Human Rights (took effect in 1978)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (took effect in 1981, signed but not ratified)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (took effect in 1990, signed but not ratified)
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (took effect in 1994)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (signed in 1996 but never ratified and never took effect)
Mine Ban Treaty (took effect in 1999)
International Criminal Court (took effect in 2002)
Kyoto Protocol (in force 2005–12, signed but not ratified)
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (took effect in 2006)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (took effect in 2008, signed but not ratified)
Convention on Cluster Munitions (took effect in 2010)
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (took effect in 2010)
Arms Trade Treaty (took effect in 2014)
Other human rights treaties
Further information: List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States
Hub and spoke vs multilateral[edit]
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 "hub and spoke" model using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States and do not collaborate with each other.[18] 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.[19] However, in 2011 Gates said that the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation," for building multilateral cooperation.[20]
Oil[edit]
Persian Gulf[edit]
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
As of 2014, the U.S. currently produces about 66% of the oil that it consumes.[21] While its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for increased energy independence from oil exporting countries such as OPEC.[22] Former U.S. President George W. Bush identified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security concern".[23]
Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf.[24][25] 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.[26]
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.[27] 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.[28] 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.[29][30][31][32]
Canada[edit]
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.[33]
Africa[edit]
In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.[34]
Foreign aid[edit]
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, which is $49 billion in all for 2014.[35] Aid 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).[36]
In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor ($23 billion in 2014).[35] The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid. In addition many private agencies, churches and philanthropies provide 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.
Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting foreign aid much more than conservatives do.[37]
Military[edit]
As of 2016, the United States is actively conducting military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including in areas of fighting in the Syrian Civil War and Yemeni Civil War. The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base holds what the federal government considers unlawful combatants from these ongoing activities, and has been a controversial issue in foreign relations, domestic politics, and Cuba–United States relations. Other major U.S. military concerns include stability in Afghanistan and Iraq after the recent invasions of those countries, and Russian military activity in Ukraine.
Mutual defense agreements[edit]
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, an alliance of 28 North American and European nations formed to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. The United States itself was the first country to invoke the mutual defense provisions of the alliance, in response to the September 11 attacks.
The United States also has mutual military defense treaties with:[38]
Australia and New Zealand
Japan
South Korea
Philippines
Thailand, with other states formerly in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization
Most countries in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, through the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance
The United States has responsibility for the defense of the three Compact of Free Association states: Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.
Other allies and multilateral organizations[edit]
Countries with U.S. military bases (excluding the U.S. Coast Guard).
In 1989, the United States also granted five nations the major non-NATO ally status (MNNA), and additions by later presidents have brought the list to 28 nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.
U.S. Air Force Special Tactics Commandos training with Jordanian special operations forces
and lesser agreements with:
Taiwan
Israel
Saudi Arabia
The U.S. participates in various military-related multi-lateral organizations, including:
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
International Atomic Energy Agency
The U.S. also operates hundreds of military bases around the world.
Unilateral vs. multilateral military actions[edit]
The United States has undertaken unilateral and multilateral military operations throughout its history (see Timeline of United States military operations). In the post-World War II era, the country has had permanent membership and veto power in the United Nations Security Council, allowing it to undertake any military action without formal Security Council opposition. With vast military expenditures, the United States is known as the sole remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. contributes a relatively small number of personnel for United Nations peacekeeping operations. It sometimes acts though NATO, as with the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and ISAF in Afghanistan, but often acts unilaterally or in ad-hoc coalitions as with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The United Nations Charter requires that military operations be either for self-defense or affirmatively approved by the Security Council. Though many of their operations have followed these rules, the United States and NATO have been accused of committing crimes against peace in international law, for example in the 1999 Yugoslavia and 2003 Iraq operations.
Aid[edit]
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
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.[39] Since 9/11, Pakistan has received approximately $11.5 billion in direct military aid.[40]
As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.[41]
Estimated U.S. foreign military financing and aid by recipient for 2010:
Recipient
Military aid 2010 (USD Billions)
Iraq 6.50
Afghanistan 5.60[42]
Israel 2.75[43]
Egypt 1.75[44]
Pakistan 1.60[45]
Colombia .834[46]
Jordan .300[47]
Palestinian Authority .100[44]
Yemen .070
According to a 2016 report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. topped the market in global weapon sales for 2015, with $40 billion sold. The largest buyers were Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.[48]
Missile defense[edit]
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[49] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles,[50] later dubbed "Star Wars".[51] 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.[52]
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[53] (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan).[54] According to press reports the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree)[55] to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.[56][57]
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.[58][59] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.[60] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[61]
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.[62] "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.[53][63]
Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, argue in Foreign Affairs that U.S. missile defenses are designed to secure Washington's nuclear primacy and are chiefly directed at potential rivals, such as Russia and China. The authors note that Washington continues to eschew nuclear first strike and contend that deploying missile defenses "would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one; as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield":
If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal, if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.[64]
This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies. The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere. The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to "Field a missile defense system as a shield against accidental missile launches or limited missile strikes by 'international outlaws'" and also must "Find ways to integrate the 'new democracies' of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S.-led system". The National Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words. "This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still-classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs."[65]
Finally, Robert David English, writing in Foreign Affairs, observes that in addition to the deployment U.S. missile defenses, the DPG's second recommendation has also been proceeding on course. "Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests."[66]
Exporting democracy[edit]
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.[67][68] Critics have also charged that the U.S. helped local militaries overthrow 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.[69] 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."[70][71] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[69] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[72]
Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy[edit]
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.[73] 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."[74]
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.[75] 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.[76]
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."[77][78] 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.[79]
Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results[edit]
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.[69] However this does not take into account the direction the country would have gone with no U.S. intervention.
Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy[edit]
Hermann and Kegley found that American military interventions designed to protect or promote democracy increased freedom in those countries.[72] 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."[80] 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.[81]
Peceny stated that the United States attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 20th-century military interventions.[82] Peceny argued that proliberal policies after military intervention had a positive impact on democracy.[83]
Global opinion[edit]
A global survey done by Pewglobal indicated that at (as of 2014) least 33 surveyed countries have a positive view (50% or above) of the United States. With the top ten most positive countries being Philippines (92%), Israel (84%), South Korea (82%), Kenya (80%), El Salvador (80%), Italy (78%), Ghana (77%), Vietnam (76%), Bangladesh (76%), and Tanzania (75%). While 10 surveyed countries have the most negative view (Below 50%) of the United States. With the countries being Egypt (10%), Jordan (12%), Pakistan (14%), Turkey (19%), Russia (23%), Palestinian Territories (30%), Greece (34%), Argentina (36%), Lebanon (41%), Tunisia (42%). American's own view of the United States was viewed at 84%.[84]
Covert actions[edit]
Main articles: United States involvement in regime change and History of the Central Intelligence Agency
See also: Clandestine HUMINT and covert action
Covert United States involvement in regime change
1949 Syrian coup d'état
1949–1953 Albania
1951–56 Tibet
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1956–57 Syria crisis
1957–58 Indonesian rebellion
1959–2000 Cuba, assassination attempts on Fidel Castro
1959 Cambodian "Bangkok Plot"
1960 Congo coup
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1961 Cuba, Operation Mongoose
1961 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnamese coup
1964 Bolivian coup d'état
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1966 Ghana coup d'état
1970 Cambodian coup
1971 Bolivian coup d'état
1970–73 Chile
1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
1982 Chad
1991 Haiti
1996 Iraq coup attempt
2001 Afghanistan
2004 Haiti
2011 Libyan civil war
2011–2017 Syria
view
talk
edit
United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to the United States. According to J. Dana Stuster, writing in Foreign Policy, there are seven "confirmed cases" where the U.S.—acting principally through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but sometimes with the support of other parts of the U.S. government, including the Navy and State Department—covertly assisted in the overthrow of a foreign government: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, the Dominican Republic in 1961, South Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973. Stuster states that this list excludes "U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts" such as those directed against Cuba's Fidel Castro, as well as instances where U.S. involvement has been alleged but not proven (such as Syria in 1949).[85]
In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, initiated Operation Ajax against the Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This had the effect of restoring and strengthening the authoritarian monarchical reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[86] In 1957, the CIA and Israeli Mossad aided the Iranian government in establishing its intelligence service, SAVAK, later blamed for the torture and execution of the regime's opponents.[87][88]
A year later, in Operation PBSUCCESS, the CIA assisted the local military in toppling the democratically elected left-wing government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala and installing the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. The United Fruit Company lobbied for Árbenz overthrow as his land reforms jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long civil war which claimed the lives of an estimated 200,000 people (42,275 individual cases have been documented), mostly through 626 massacres against the Maya population perpetrated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military.[89][90][91][92] An independent Historical Clarification Commission found that U.S. corporations and government officials "exercised pressure to maintain the country's archaic and unjust socio-economic structure," and that the CIA backed illegal counterinsurgency operations.[90]
During the massacre of alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia, the U.S. government provided assistance to the Indonesian military that helped facilitate the mass killings.[93][94][95][96][97][98] This included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000 names of suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were subsequently killed in the massacres.[99][100][101][102][103] In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the publication of the State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, which documents the U.S. role in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI.[97][104][105] In July 2016, an international panel of judges ruled the killings constitute crimes against humanity, and that the US, along with other Western governments, were complicit in these crimes.[106]
In 1970, the CIA worked with coup-plotters in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General René Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election of Salvador Allende. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later. The CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.[107][108]
Influencing foreign elections[edit]
Main article: Foreign electoral intervention
According to one peer-reviewed study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36.[109]
Human rights[edit]
See also: Human rights violations by the CIA, List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States, United States and state-sponsored terrorism, and United States and state terrorism
Zairean dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973
Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy.[110] Congress took the lead in the 1970s.[111] 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,"[112] 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:
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."[112]
Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "No 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."[112]
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."[112]
Barack Obama with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, January 2015. According to AI, "For too long, the USA has shied away from publicly confronting Saudi Arabia over its human rights record, largely turning a blind eye to a mounting catalogue of abuses."[113]
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 U.S. interests over any behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive regimes.[111] Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union.[114] John Henry Coatsworth, a historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990.[115] W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler" of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the region's worst tendencies."[116]
On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries.[117] He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays,[118] joining other western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.[119]
In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, both American citizens, shortly after the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.[120]
War on Drugs[edit]
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,[121] 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[edit]
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.[67][68] Critics also point to declassified records which indicate that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited more than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.[122][123]
The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human rights, such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile,[124] Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay,[125] Efraín Ríos Montt of Guatemala,[126] Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina,[127] Hissène Habré of Chad[128][129] Yahya Khan of Pakistan[130] and Suharto of Indonesia.[96][100] Critics have also accused the United States of supporting Operation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America.[131][125][132]
Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led airstrikes and targeted killings by drones which have in some cases resulted in collateral damage of civilian populations.[133][134] In early 2017, the U.S. faced criticism from some scholars, activists and media outlets for dropping 26,171 bombs on seven different countries throughout 2016: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.[135][136][137]
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.[69] Some 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."[70][71] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[69] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[72] A 2013 global poll in 68 countries with 66,000 respondents by Win/Gallup found that the U.S. is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace.[138][139][140]
Support[edit]
President George W. Bush and Slovakia's Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda are greeted by a crowd of thousands gathered in Bratislava's Hviezdoslavovo Square (February 2005).
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.[141][142]
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.[143][144]
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.[145]
Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[146][147] 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.[148][149] 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.[142] 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.[150]
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 health."[151] 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."[152] 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.[153] Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world".[154]
The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools [155] Examples of these tools are as follows:
A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Advancing Freedom and Democracy",[156] issued in compliance with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law).[157]
A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." [158]
In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards." [159]
The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.[160]
The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[161]
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.
By country or region[edit]
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (November 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
It has been suggested that this section be merged into Foreign relations of the United States. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2016.
United Kingdom[edit]
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.[162]
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.[163]
Canada[edit]
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."[164] The border was demilitarized after the War of 1812 and, apart from minor raids[clarification needed], has remained peaceful. Military collaboration began during World War II and continued throughout the Cold War on both a 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.[165][166] The two economies have increasingly merged since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, which also includes Mexico.
Mexico[edit]
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.[167][168]
Australia[edit]
Main article: Australia–United States relations
Former 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".[169] 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".[170]
Middle East[edit]
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, Morocco, Jordan, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. Israel and Egypt are leading recipients of United States foreign aid, receiving $2.775 billion[43] and 1.75 billion[44] 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 toppled the government of Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[171] Turkey is host to approximately 90 B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base.[172] Other allies include Qatar, where 3,500 U.S. troops are based,[173] and Bahrain, where the United States Navy maintains NSA Bahrain, home of NAVCENT and the Fifth Fleet.
Japan[edit]
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.[174]
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 (1931), 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.[175]
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".[176] 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.[177][178]
South Korea[edit]
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 (1950–53).[179] Stimulated by heavy American aid[by whom?], 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." [180]
China[edit]
Main article: China-United States 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 quite strong, yet 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. Nevertheless, the United States and China have an extremely extensive partnership. The U.S. criticizes China on human rights issues and in recent years, China has criticized the United States on human rights in return.
Taiwan[edit]
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.[181]
ASEAN[edit]
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.[182] Trade flows are robust and increasing between America and the ASEAN region.
Indonesia[edit]
Main article: Indonesia–United States relations
As the largest ASEAN member, Indonesia has played an active and prominent role in developing the organization.[183] For United States, Indonesia is important for dealing with certain issues; such as terrorism,[184] 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.[185] The U.S. eyes Indonesia as a potential strategic ally in Southeast Asia.[186] 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.[187][188]
Malaysia[edit]
Main article: Malaysia–United States relations
Despite increasingly strained 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[edit]
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.[189]
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.[190] 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[edit]
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 United States finally recognized Philippine independence on July 4, 1946 in the Treaty of Manila.[191] 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.[192] Since 2003 the U.S. has designated the Philippines as a Major Non-NATO Ally.
Thailand[edit]
Main article: Thailand–United States relations
Thailand and the U.S. 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 Thailand as a Major Non-NATO Ally.
Vietnam[edit]
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, the U.S. eyes Vietnam as a potential strategic ally in Southeast Asia.[186]
Eastern Europe[edit]
President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk of Ukraine at the conclusion of their bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, March 12, 2014.
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[edit]
Main article: Kosovo–United States relations
The UN Security Council divided on the question of Kosovo's declaration of independence. Kosovo declared its independence on February 17, 2008, whilst Serbia objected that Kosovo is part of its territory. Of the five members with veto power in the UN Security Council, the US, 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 standards of democracy, including freedom and tolerance and justice for citizens of all ethnic backgrounds", President George W. Bush said on February 19, 2008.[193][194]
See also[edit]
International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)
Constitutional and international law[edit]
Advice and consent
List of United States treaties
Missouri v. Holland
Treaty Clause
Diplomacy[edit]
Council on Foreign Relations
Cowboy diplomacy
List of diplomatic missions of the United States
George Washington's Farewell Address
United States and the United Nations
United States Agency for International Development
List of diplomatic missions in the United States
United States foreign aid
The Washington Diplomat
Intelligence[edit]
Extraordinary rendition
Special Activities Division
Torture and the United States
Military[edit]
2003 invasion of Iraq
NATO
United States Foreign Military Financing
United States involvement in regime change
United States military aid
Policy and doctrine[edit]
United States and state terrorism
United States and state-sponsored terrorism
Anti-Americanism
American imperialism
American exceptionalism
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
Roosevelt Corollary
Special Relationship
Truman Doctrine
Criticism of American foreign policy
United States foreign policy in the Middle East
History of U.S.
expansion and influence
Foreign policy
Military history
Timeline of military operations
List of wars
List of bases
Manifest destiny
Non-interventionism
Overseas interventions
Pax Americana
America's Backyard
Territorial acquisitions
view
talk
edit
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Alphabetical List of Bureaus and Offices". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Bureau of Budget and Planning". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ "About the Committee". Archived from the original on April 15, 2012. Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ James M. McCormick, American Foreign Policy and Process (2009) ch. 7–8
Jump up ^ George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (2008)
Jump up ^ 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
Jump up ^ Oren, Michael B. (2005-11-03). "The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815".
Jump up ^ Donald L. Miller (2015). Supreme City: How Jazz Age Manhattan Gave Birth to Modern America. Simon and Schuster. pp. 44–45.
Jump up ^ Seymour Martin Lipset, "Neoconservatism: Myth and reality." Society 25.5 (1988): pp. 9-13 online.
Jump up ^ Colin Dueck, Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II (2010).
Jump up ^ Nikolas K. Gvosdev (2008-01-02). "FDR's Children". National Interest. Archived from the original on August 26, 2010. 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).
Jump up ^ See Peter Baker, "Tips for Leaders Meeting Trump: Keep It Short and Give Him a Win," New York Times May 18, 2017
Jump up ^ Laurence H. Tribe, "Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation," 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1227 (1995).
Jump up ^ The power of the League was limited by the United States' refusal to join. Northedge, F.S (1986). The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920–1946. Holmes & Meier. pp. 276–78. ISBN 0-7185-1316-9.
Jump up ^ The United States was responsible for 36% of greenhouse gas emissions at the time of the Kyoto Protocol
Jump up ^ The United States Should Ratify The Law Of The Sea Convention (due to China citing U.S. citing non-ratification as a reason it doesn't need to follow the agreement)
Jump up ^ Why won't America ratify the UN convention on children's rights?
Jump up ^ Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Schott, Jeffrey J. (1994). Western Hemisphere Economic Integration. Peterson Institute. pp. 132–22.
Jump up ^ John Pike. "Gates Delivers Keynote Address to Open Asia Security Conference". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ Shanker, Tom. "Gates Talks of Boosting Asian Security Despite Budget Cuts." New York Times, 1 June 2011.
Jump up ^ "United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". Retrieved April 20, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Company Level Imports". Retrieved April 20, 2016.
Jump up ^ Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China Falls as Oil Prices Rise, Bloomberg.com
Jump up ^ Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia, New York Times
Jump up ^ The End of Cheap Oil, National Geographic
Jump up ^ James Paul. "Crude Designs:". Global Policy Forum. Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ The war is about oil but it's not that simple, msnbc.com
Jump up ^ The United States Navy and the Persian Gulf Archived January 1, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ What if the Chinese were to apply the Carter Doctrine?, Haaretz - Israel News
Jump up ^ Selling the Carter Doctrine, TIME
Jump up ^ Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil, Times Online
Jump up ^ Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq, The Guardian
Jump up ^ See Energy Information Administration, "Canada" (2009 report)
Jump up ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 12, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-04.
^ Jump up to: a b See "FY 2014 Omnibus – State and Foreign Operations Appropriations" (Jan 2014)
Jump up ^ Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy
Jump up ^ Stanford University Press. "The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs - Peter Hays Gries". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/
Jump up ^ "U.S. Policy in Colombia | Amnesty International USA". Amnestyusa.org. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
Jump up ^ "The News International: Latest, Breaking, Pakistan, Sports and Video News". Retrieved 18 February 2015. [permanent dead link]
Jump up ^ Fox News, 1 November 2004 Analysts Ponder U.S. Basing in Iraq
Jump up ^ Afghanistan: US foreign assistance
^ Jump up to: a b https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/aid2010.html Congress Approves FY2010 Aid to Israel
^ Jump up to: a b c http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-aid-tied-to-purchase-of-arms-20100101-llsb.html US aid tied to purchase of arms
Jump up ^ Aid to Pakistan
Jump up ^ http://www.ciponline.org/facts/below_the_radar_eng.pdf
Jump up ^ Jordan: Background and U.S relations
Jump up ^ "U.S. Sold $40 Billion in Weapons in 2015, Topping Global Market". The New York Times. 2016-12-26. Retrieved 2017-01-01.
Jump up ^ Federation of American Scientists. Missile Defense Milestones. Accessed March 10, 2006.
Jump up ^ Johann Hari: Obama's chance to end the fantasy that is Star Wars, The Independent, November 13, 2008
Jump up ^ Historical Documents: Reagan's 'Star Wars' speech Archived December 19, 2008, at the Wayback Machine., CNN Cold War
Jump up ^ "Son of "Star Wars" - How Missile Defense Systems Will Work". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved 18 February 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Missile defense backers now cite Russia threat
Jump up ^ U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense, washingtonpost.com
Jump up ^ Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech Republic Archived November 30, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Europe diary: Missile defence, BBC News
Jump up ^ "Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield, Telegraph
Jump up ^ China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn U.S. missile defense plans, International Herald Tribune
Jump up ^ Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence, The Guardian
Jump up ^ U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense, USATODAY.com
Jump up ^ Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal, The New York Times, August 15, 2008
Jump up ^ Russia angry over U.S. missile shield, Al Jazeera English, August 15, 2008
Jump up ^ "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy" Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006
Jump up ^ "Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival" The National Security Archive
Jump up ^ "Russia, Trump, and a New Détente" Foreign Affairs, March 10, 2017
^ Jump up to: a b Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de (Spring 2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest. 2. Archived from the original on July 5, 2008. Also see this page.
^ Jump up to: a b Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391–402. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e 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.
^ Jump up to: a b Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 243–65.
^ Jump up to: a b Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 183. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.
^ Jump up to: a b c 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.
Jump up ^ 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.
Jump up ^ Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9.
Jump up ^ Factors included limits on executive power, clear rules for the transition of power, universal adult suffrage, and competitive elections.
Jump up ^ Pei, Samia Amin (March 17, 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune.
Jump up ^ Peceny, p. 186.
Jump up ^ Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press. pp. 91–118. ISBN 0-8447-3734-8.
Jump up ^ Krasner, Stephen D. (November 26, 2003). "We Don't Know How To Build Democracy". Los Angeles Times.
Jump up ^ 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]
Jump up ^ Peceny, p. 193
Jump up ^ Peceny, p. 2
Jump up ^ 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. [permanent dead link]
Jump up ^ "http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/16/". Pew Research Center. External link in |title= (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Stuster, J. Dana (2013-08-20). "Mapped: The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2016-11-21.
Jump up ^ "Special Report: Secret History of the CIA in Iran". The New York Times. 2000.
Jump up ^ Curtis, Glenn E.; Hooglund, Eric, eds. (2008). Iran: A Country Study (PDF) (Fifth ed.). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Federal Research Division. p. 276. ISBN 9780844411873.
Jump up ^ "Timeline: A Modern History of Iran". PBS NewsHour. February 11, 2010. Retrieved November 23, 2016.
Jump up ^ Stephen Schlesinger (3 June 2011). Ghosts of Guatemala's Past. The New York Times. Retrieved 5 July 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Navarro, Mireya (February 26, 1999). "Guatemalan Army Waged 'Genocide,' New Report Finds". The New York Times. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
Jump up ^ Jones, Maggie (June 30, 2016). "The Secrets in Guatemala’s Bones". The New York Times. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
Jump up ^ Cooper, Allan (2008). The Geography of Genocide. University Press of America. p. 171. ISBN 0761840974.
Jump up ^ Simpson, Bradley. Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and U.S.-Indonesian Relations, 1960–1968. Stanford University Press, 2010. p. 1. ISBN 0804771820
Jump up ^ Brad Simpson (Winter 2013). The Act of Killing and the Dilemmas of History. Film Quarterly. Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 10–13. Published by: University of California Press. Retrieved 9 May 2014.
Jump up ^ Brad Simpson (28 February 2014). It's Our Act of Killing, Too. The Nation. Retrieved 9 May 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Kai Thaler (December 2, 2015). 50 years ago today, American diplomats endorsed mass killings in Indonesia. Here's what that means for today. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 4, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Margaret Scott (November 2, 2015) The Indonesian Massacre: What Did the US Know? The New York Review of Books. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
Jump up ^ Samantha Michaels (October 1, 2015). It's Been 50 Years Since the Biggest US-Backed Genocide You've Never Heard Of. Mother Jones. Retrieved December 25, 2015.
Jump up ^ Bellamy, Alex J. (2012). Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-928842-9. p. 210.
^ Jump up to: a b Mark Aarons (2007). "Justice Betrayed: Post-1945 Responses to Genocide." In David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L. H. McCormack (eds). The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International Humanitarian Law). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9004156917 pp. 80–81
Jump up ^ Vickers, Adrian (2005). A History of Modern Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54262-6 p. 157
Jump up ^ Friend, Theodore (2003). Indonesian Destinies. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01137-6 p. 117
Jump up ^ Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005). Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. Cornell University Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0801472732.
Jump up ^ U.S. Seeks to Keep Lid on Far East Purge Role. The Associated Press via The Los Angeles Times, July 28, 2001. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
Jump up ^ Thomas Blanton (ed). CIA STALLING STATE DEPARTMENT HISTORIES: STATE HISTORIANS CONCLUDE U.S. PASSED NAMES OF COMMUNISTS TO INDONESIAN ARMY, WHICH KILLED AT LEAST 105,000 IN 1965–66. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 52., July 27, 2001. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
Jump up ^ Perry, Juliet (July 21, 2016). "Tribunal finds Indonesia guilty of 1965 genocide; US, UK complicit". CNN. Retrieved June 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ CIA Admits Involvement in Chile. ABC News. September 20
Jump up ^ John Dinges. The Condor Years: How Pinochet And His Allies Brought Terrorism To Three Continents. The New Press, 2005. p. 20. ISBN 1565849779
Jump up ^ Levin, Dov H. (June 2016). "When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results". International Studies Quarterly. 60 (2): 189–202. See the full list of interventions in the appendix.
Jump up ^ Joe Renouard, Human Rights in American Foreign Policy: From the 1960s to the Soviet Collapse (U of Pennsylvania Press, 2016). 324 pp.
^ Jump up to: a b Crabb, Cecil V.; Pat Holt (1992). Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy (2nd ed.). Michigan: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 187–211. ISBN 978-0-87187-622-5.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Forsythe, David (1988). Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. pp. 1–23. ISBN 978-0-8130-0885-1.
Jump up ^ "Saudi Arabia: President Obama must not shirk responsibility to tackle human rights during visit". Amnesty International. March 28, 2014.
Jump up ^ Daniel Goldhagen (2009). Worse Than War. PublicAffairs. ISBN 1-58648-769-8 p. 537
"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."
Jump up ^ Coatsworth, John Henry (2012). "The Cold War in Central America, 1975–1991". In Leffler, Melvyn P.; Westad, Odd Arne. The Cambridge History of the Cold War (Volume 3). Cambridge University Press. p. 230. ISBN 978-1107602311.
Jump up ^ W. John Green (June 1, 2015). A History of Political Murder in Latin America: Killing the Messengers of Change Archived March 10, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.. SUNY Press. p. 147. ISBN 1438456638
Jump up ^ McVeigh, Karen (December 6, 2011). "Gay rights must be criterion for U.S. aid allocations, instructs Obama". The Guardian. London. Retrieved January 4, 2013.
Jump up ^ 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.
Jump up ^ Bershidsky, Leonid (December 19, 2013). "Putin Plays Games to Salvage Olympics". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved December 25, 2013.
Jump up ^ Pascale Bonnefoy (30 June 2014). Chilean Court Rules U.S. Had Role in Murders. The New York Times. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Memorandum for the Secretary of State". 15 September 2005. Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ Eric Lichtblau (October 26, 2014). In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis. The New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2014.
Jump up ^ The Nazis Next Door: Eric Lichtblau on How the CIA & FBI Secretly Sheltered Nazi War Criminals. Democracy Now! October 31, 2014.
Jump up ^ Peter Kornbluh (September 11, 2013). The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. The New Press. ISBN 1595589120 p. xviii
^ Jump up to: a b Walter L. Hixson (2009). The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press. p. 223. ISBN 0300151314
Jump up ^ What Guilt Does the U.S. Bear in Guatemala? The New York Times, May 19, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
Jump up ^ Duncan Campbell (December 5, 2003). Kissinger approved Argentinian 'dirty war'. The Guardian. Retrieved August 29, 2015.
Jump up ^ Hissène Habré, Ex-President of Chad, Is Convicted of War Crimes. The New York Times. May 30, 2016.
Jump up ^ From U.S. Ally to Convicted War Criminal: Inside Chad's Hissène Habré's Close Ties to Reagan Admin. Democracy Now! May 31, 2016.
Jump up ^ Looking Away from Genocide. The New Yorker. November 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ McSherry, J. Patrice (2011). "Chapter 5: "Industrial repression" and Operation Condor in Latin America". In Esparza, Marcia; Henry R. Huttenbach; Daniel Feierstein. State Violence and Genocide in Latin America: The Cold War Years (Critical Terrorism Studies). Routledge. p. 107. ISBN 0415664578. Operation Condor also had the covert support of the US government. Washington provided Condor with military intelligence and training, financial assistance, advanced computers, sophisticated tracking technology, and access to the continental telecommunications system housed in the Panama Canal Zone.
Jump up ^ Greg Grandin (2011). The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War. University of Chicago Press. p. 75. ISBN 9780226306902
Jump up ^ U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria kill civilians, rights groups say. CNN. July 20, 2016.
Jump up ^ Jeremy Scahill and the staff of The Intercept (2016). The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9781501144134
Jump up ^ Grandin, Greg (January 15, 2017). "Why Did the US Drop 26,171 Bombs on the World Last Year?". The Nation. Retrieved April 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ Agerholm, Harriet (January 19, 2017). "Map shows where President Barack Obama dropped his 20,000 bombs". The Independent. Retrieved April 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ Benjamin, Medea (January 9, 2017). "America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign". The Guardian. Retrieved April 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ Goodenough, Patrick. "And The Country Posing The Greatest Threat to Peace as 2013 Ends is …". CNS News. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
Jump up ^ "US the biggest threat to world peace in 2013 – poll". Rt.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
Jump up ^ Editorial, Post (2014-01-05). "US is the greatest threat to world peace: poll | New York Post". Nypost.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
Jump up ^ The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965–1989. David F. Schmitz. 2006.
^ Jump up to: a b Do the sums, then compare U.S. and Communist crimes from the Cold War Telegraph, 11 December 2005, Niall Ferguson
Jump up ^ Give peace a rating May 31, 2007, from The Economist print edition
Jump up ^ Japan ranked as world's 5th most peaceful nation: report Japan Today, May 31, 2007
Jump up ^ Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9. pp. 221–24, 314.
Jump up ^ Death By Government By R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Online links: [1] [2] [3]
Jump up ^ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Archived October 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine., Barbara Harff, 2003.
Jump up ^ 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.
Jump up ^ Caliendo, Stephen.; Gibney, Mark. (2006). "American Print Media Coverage of Human Rights Violations". Retrieved 2008-04-02.
Jump up ^ Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
Jump up ^ "Democracy". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ Clinton, Bill (January 28, 2000). "1994 State Of The Union Address". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-01-22.
Jump up ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 14, 2008. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
Jump up ^ 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. ...
Jump up ^ "Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ "Advancing Freedom and Democracy". Retrieved April 20, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ "Human Rights Reports". Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20061215191919/http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c20063.htm. Archived from the original on December 15, 2006. Retrieved May 28, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
Jump up ^ [4]
Jump up ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20070314005832/http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c18970.htm. Archived from the original on March 14, 2007. Retrieved May 28, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
Jump up ^ James, Wither (March 2006). "An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century". European Security. 15 (1): 47–65. ISSN 0966-2839. doi:10.1080/09662830600776694.
Jump up ^ US Department of State, Background Note on the United Kingdom
Jump up ^ 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
Jump up ^ "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
Jump up ^ "Canada". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2011-11-05.
Jump up ^ Tim Padgett, "Mexico's Calderón Needs to Listen, Not Just Lecture U.S." TIME May 19, 2010 online
Jump up ^ Burton Kirkwood, The History of Mexico (2010) pp 97–99, 138–52, 216
Jump up ^ Lyndal Curtis for The World Today (2009-03-25). "Rudd's warm Washington welcome – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
Jump up ^ "Q+A: Guyon Espiner interviews Kurt Campbell". Television New Zealand. October 11, 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2011.
Jump up ^ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11
Jump up ^ "Report: US considers withdrawing nuclear bombs from Turkey". Todayszaman.com. 2010-04-03. Archived from the original on October 15, 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
Jump up ^ Sciutto, Jim. "U.S. Troops Preparing for War in Qatar - ABC News". Abcnews.go.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
Jump up ^ Foster Rhea Dulles, Yankees and Samurai: America's Role in the Emergence of Modern Japan, 1791–1900 (1965)
Jump up ^ Walter LaFeber, The Clash: A History of US–Japan Relations (W.W. Norton, 1997)
Jump up ^ Kessler, Glenn (2009-02-25). "Japanese Prime Minister Meets With Obama, Says Economy Complicates North Korea Talks". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-01-24.
Jump up ^ Calmes, Jackie (2013-02-22). "Japan and United States Reaffirm Their Close Ties". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-02-23.
Jump up ^ "Joint Statement by the United States and Japan". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
Jump up ^ Jae Ho Chung, Between Ally and Partner: Korea-China Relations and the United States (2008) excerpt and text search
Jump up ^ "President Obama Vows Strengthened U.S.-South Korea Ties". Archived from the original on 2009-07-04.
Jump up ^ Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, ed., Dangerous Strait: The U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis (2005)
Jump up ^ Daniel Seah, "The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia: The Issue of Non-Intervention and its Accession by Australia and the USA," Chinese Journal of international Law and (2012) 11#4 pp. 785–822 online
Jump up ^ See "Editorial: The ASEAN cage Jakarta Post7 July 2011".
Jump up ^ U.S.-Indonesia Military Relations in The Anti-Terror War Archived October 12, 2006, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Indonesia: An Important Focus Point for World Security
^ Jump up to: a b "404". Archived from the original on March 31, 2012. Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ "BBC News – Obama hails Indonesia as example for world". BBC News. November 10, 2010. Retrieved 18 February 2015.
Jump up ^ Obama delivers a speech in the University of Indonesia Archived November 4, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ "The EU's relations with Burma / Myanmar". European Union. Archived from the original on 2006-07-25. Retrieved 2006-07-13.
Jump up ^ The List: Burma's Economic Lifelines. Foreign Policy. October 2007
Jump up ^ TREATY OF GENERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. SIGNED AT MANILA, ON 4 JULY 1946 (PDF), United Nations, archived from the original (pdf) on July 23, 2011, retrieved 2007-12-10
Jump up ^ 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
Jump up ^ Bush Hails Kosovo Independence Archived August 21, 2008, at the Wayback Machine., U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs
Jump up ^ Bush insists Kosovo must be independent and receives hero's welcome in Albania, The Guardian
Further reading[edit]
Bailey, Thomas. A Diplomatic History of the American People (10th ed. Prentice Hall, 1980)
Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II (Common Courage Press, 2003)
Borgwardt, Elizabeth. "A New Deal for the World" (Harvard UP, 2005)
Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (Metropolitan Books, 2003)
Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 4, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945–1991 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
Dueck, Colin. Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II (2010).
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)
Gries, Peter Hays. The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs (Stanford University Press, 2014)
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.
Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford History of the United States) (2008)
Hixson, Walter L. The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press, 2009. ISBN 0300151314
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. JSTOR 424565. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002.
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)
Sergent, Daniel J. A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s (2015)
Schulzinger, Robert. A Companion to American Foreign Relations (Wiley Blackwell Companions to American History) (2006). 26 essays by scholars; emphasis on historiography
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.
Watry, David M. Diplomacy at the Brink: Eisenhower, Churchill, and Eden in the Cold War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2014.
Wittkopf, Eugene R. et al. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process (2007)
External links[edit]
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
The Good Country from Commentary
The American Empire: Murder Inc. Chris Hedges interviews American investigative journalist Allan Nairn
[show]
v
t
e
Public policy of the United States
Agricultural
Arctic
Climate change (G. W. Bush)
Domestic (Reagan, G. W. Bush)
Drug
Economic (G. W. Bush, Obama)
Energy (Obama)
Environmental
Fiscal
Foreign (History, Criticism, Reagan, Clinton, G. W. Bush, Obama, Trump)
Gun control (Clinton)
Low-level radioactive waste
Monetary
Native American (Nixon, Obama)
Nuclear energy
Science
Social (Obama)
Space (G. W. Bush, Obama)
Stem cell
Telecommunications
Trade
Visa
[show]
v
t
e
Foreign relations of the United States
[show]
Bilateral relations
Africa
East
Burundi
Comoros
Djibouti
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Kenya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Rwanda
Seychelles
Somalia
South Sudan
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Middle
Angola
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
São Tomé and Príncipe
North
Algeria
Egypt
Libya
Morocco
Sudan
Tunisia
Southern
Botswana
Lesotho
Namibia
South Africa
Swaziland
West
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cape Verde
Ivory Coast
The Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Togo
Americas
Caribbean
Aruba
Barbados
Cayman Islands
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Haiti
Jamaica
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Central
Belize
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
Northern
Bermuda
Canada
trade relations
Mexico
South
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
Asia
Central
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
East
China
Hong Kong
Japan
Macau
Mongolia
North Korea
South Korea
Taiwan
South
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan (military relations)
Sri Lanka
Southeast
Brunei
Burma
Cambodia
East Timor
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
West
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Cyprus
Georgia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
military relations
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Europe
East
Belarus
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Moldova
Poland
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
Ukraine
North
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Iceland
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
Sweden
United Kingdom
South
Andorra
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
Greece
Italy
Kosovo
Macedonia
Malta
Montenegro
Portugal
San Marino
Serbia
Slovenia
Spain
Vatican City
West
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
Switzerland
Oceania
Australia
Fiji
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
New Zealand
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Former states
Kingdom of Hawaii
Republic of Texas
Russian Empire
Soviet Union
[show]
Multilateral relations
Arab League
Commonwealth of Nations
European Union
Latin America
United Nations
Third Border Initiative
International organizations
[hide]
Doctrines, policies, concepts
Presidential
doctrines
Proclamation of Neutrality
Monroe
Roosevelt Corollary
Good Neighbor policy
Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton
Bush
Obama
Other doctrines
Lodge Corollary
Stimson
Kirkpatrick
Weinberger
Powell
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Policies and
concepts
Blowback
Containment
Domino theory
Non-interventionism
Progressive realism
Rollback
Special Relationship
Taiwan Relations Act
[show]
v
t
e
United States articles
History
By event
Timeline of U.S. history
Pre-Columbian era
Colonial era
Thirteen Colonies
military history
Continental Congress
American Revolution
War
American frontier
Drafting and ratification of Constitution
Federalist Era
War of 1812
Territorial acquisitions
Territorial evolution
Mexican–American War
Civil War
Reconstruction Era
Indian Wars
Gilded Age
Progressive Era
African-American Civil Rights Movement 1865–1895 / 1896–1954
Spanish–American War
Imperialism
World War I
Roaring Twenties
Great Depression
World War II
home front
Nazism in the United States
American Century
Cold War
Korean War
Space Race
Civil Rights Movement
Feminist Movement
Vietnam War
Post-Cold War (1991–2008)
Collapse of the Soviet Union
War on Terror
War in Afghanistan
Iraq War
Recent events (2008–present)
By topic
Outline of U.S. history
Demographic
Discoveries
Economic
debt ceiling
Inventions
before 1890
1890–1945
1946–91
after 1991
Military
Postal
Technological and industrial
Geography
Territory
states
territories
counties
cities, towns, and villages
Earthquakes
Extreme points
Islands
Mountains
peaks
ranges
Appalachian
Rocky
National Park Service
National Parks
Regions
East Coast
West Coast
Great Plains
Gulf
Mid-Atlantic
Midwestern
New England
Pacific
Central
Eastern
Northern
Northeastern
Northwestern
Southern
Southeastern
Southwestern
Western
Rivers
Colorado
Columbia
Mississippi
Missouri
Ohio
Rio Grande
Time
Water supply and sanitation
Politics
Federal
Executive
President
Executive Office
Cabinet / Executive departments
Civil service
Independent agencies
Law enforcement
Public policy
Legislature
Congress
Senate
Vice President
President pro tempore
House of Representatives
Speaker
Judiciary
Federal judiciary
Supreme Court
Courts of appeals
District courts
Law
Constitution
federalism
preemption
separation of powers
Bill of Rights
civil liberties
Code of Federal Regulations
Federal Reporter
United States Code
United States Reports
Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Uniformed
Armed Forces
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Air Force
Coast Guard
National Guard
NOAA Corps
Public Health Service Corps
Political
divisions
List of states and territories of the United States
States
Territories
Federal district
Native American autonomous administrative divisions
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Associated states
Local government in the United States
Federal enclave
Elections
Electoral College
Foreign relations
Foreign policy
Vetos in the UN Security Council
Ideologies
Anti-Americanism
Exceptionalism
Nationalism
Parties
Democratic
Republican
Third parties
51st state
political status of Puerto Rico
District of Columbia statehood movement
Red states and blue states
Purple America
Scandals
State governments
governor
state legislature
state court
Uncle Sam
Economy
By sector
Agriculture
Banking
Wall Street
Communications
Energy
Insurance
Manufacturing in the United States
Mining
Tourism
Trade
Transportation
Companies
by state
Dollar (currency)
Exports
Federal budget
Federal Reserve System
Financial position
Labor unions
Public debt
Social welfare programs
Taxation
Unemployment
Society
Culture
Americana
Architecture
Cinema
Cuisine
Dance
Demography
Education
Family structure
Fashion
Flag
Folklore
Languages
American English
Indigenous languages
ASL
Black American Sign Language
HSL
Plains Sign Talk
Arabic
Chinese
French
German
Italian
Russian
Spanish
Literature
Media
Journalism
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Music
Names
People
Philosophy
Public holidays
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Theater
Visual art
Social class
Affluence
American Dream
Educational attainment
Homelessness
Home-ownership
Household income
Income inequality
Middle class
Personal income
Poverty
Professional and working class conflict
Standard of living
Wealth
Issues
Ages of consent
Capital punishment
Crime
Incarceration
Criticism of government
Discrimination
Affirmative action
Intersex rights
Islamophobia
LGBT rights
Racism
Same-sex marriage
Drug policy
Energy policy
Environmental movement
Gun politics
Health care
Health insurance
Health care reform
Abortion
Hunger
Obesity
Smoking
Human rights
Immigration
illegal
International rankings
National security
Mass surveillance
Terrorism
Separation of church and state
Outline
Index
Book
Category
Portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&oldid=801903877"
Categories:
United States law
Foreign policy
United States foreign policy
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from January 2017
Articles with permanently dead external links
Articles with dead external links from May 2016
Articles with dead external links from May 2017
CS1 errors: external links
Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
Pages with citations lacking titles
Pages with citations having bare URLs
Use American English from May 2015
All Wikipedia articles written in American English
Use mdy dates from May 2015
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from June 2015
Articles with limited geographic scope from November 2013
Articles to be merged from June 2016
All articles to be merged
Articles with unsourced statements from February 2013
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from November 2013
Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from February 2013
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Հայերեն
Bahasa Melayu
日本語
Română
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
Українська
Edit links
This page was last edited on 22 September 2017, at 17:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

value: td

value: tr

value: th

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg

attrs: href class

attrs: class id href

values: NavToggle NavToggle1 #

value: b

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

values: United States House of Representatives 2017.svg

values: Seal of the United States House of Representatives.svg

values: Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

values: Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives

values: List of United States congressional districts

values: President pro tempore of the United States Senate

values: Party leaders of the United States Senate

values: Seal of the President of the United States.svg

values: Seal of the Vice President of the United States.svg

values: List of federal agencies in the United States

values:
/wiki/Executive_Office_of_the_President
mw-redirect
Executive Office of the President

values: Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

values: List of United States district and territorial courts

values: List of United States state legislatures

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;

values: Template talk:Politics of the United States

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs

values:
/wiki/U.S._Senate
mw-redirect
U.S. Senate

values:
/wiki/Commander_in_Chief
mw-redirect
Commander in Chief

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Timeline of United States diplomatic history

values:
/wiki/Political_realism
mw-redirect
Political realism

values:
/wiki/Barbary_corsairs
mw-redirect
Barbary corsairs

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (June 2015)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

values:
/wiki/Free_trade_agreement
mw-redirect
Free trade agreement

values: Edit section: Economic and general government

values: List of specialized agencies of the United Nations

values: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

values: Edit section: Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements

values:
/wiki/Versailles_Treaty
mw-redirect
Versailles Treaty

values: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

values: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

values:
/wiki/Mine_Ban_Treaty
mw-redirect
Mine Ban Treaty

values: United States and the International Criminal Court

values: Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture

values: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

values: List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States

values: Edit section: Hub and spoke vs multilateral

values: United States Agency for International Development

values: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

values: Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #1f78b4; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid;page-break-inside: avoid;break-inside: avoid-column

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #a6cee3; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #b2df8a; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea

values: Mutual Defense Treaty (United States–Philippines)

values: Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

values: Edit section: Other allies and multilateral organizations

values: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

values: Edit section: Unilateral vs. multilateral military actions

values: Timeline of United States military operations

values: NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina

values: United States Foreign Military Financing

values:
/wiki/National_missile_defense
mw-redirect
National missile defense

values:
/wiki/Nuclear_missiles
mw-redirect
Nuclear missiles

values: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

values: List of United States military history events

values:
/wiki/Operation_Ajax
mw-redirect
Operation Ajax

values:
/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS
mw-redirect
Operation PBSUCCESS

values: Edit section: Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy

values:
/wiki/Axis_Powers
mw-redirect
Axis Powers

values:
/wiki/Third_world
mw-redirect
Third world

values: Edit section: Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results

values: Edit section: Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy

values: United States involvement in regime change

values: History of the Central Intelligence Agency

values:
/wiki/Operation_Mongoose
mw-redirect
Operation Mongoose

values: Template:Covert United States involvement in regime change

values: Template talk:Covert United States involvement in regime change

values: width:auto; float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 .5em 1em; font-size: 85%; text-align: left;

values:
/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh
mw-redirect
Mohammad Mossadegh

values: Edit section: Influencing foreign elections

values: List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States

values: United States and state-sponsored terrorism

values:
/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)
mw-redirect
Prohibition (drugs)

values:
/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China
mw-redirect
People's Republic of China

values:
/wiki/Targeted_killings
mw-redirect
Targeted killings

values:
/wiki/Mikulas_Dzurinda
mw-redirect
Mikulas Dzurinda

values:
/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty
mw-redirect
Mutual Defense Treaty

values: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

values: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

values: Talk:Foreign policy of the United States

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-globalize

values: Talk:Foreign relations of the United States

values:
plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-move
presentation

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (February 2013)

values:
/wiki/Bilateral_relationship
mw-redirect
Bilateral relationship

values: The text near this tag may need clarification or removal of jargon. (November 2013)

values:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

values: Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement

values: United States foreign policy in the Middle East

values:
/wiki/Turkey-United_States_relations
mw-redirect
Turkey-United States relations

values:
/wiki/Major_non-NATO_allies
mw-redirect
Major non-NATO allies

values: United States Naval Forces Central Command

values: Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan

values: Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership

values: The material near this tag may use weasel words or too-vague attribution. (February 2013)

values: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

values:
/wiki/China-United_States_relations
mw-redirect
China-United States relations

values: Republic of China–United States relations

values:
/wiki/Burmese_general_election,_1990
mw-redirect
Burmese general election, 1990

values:
/wiki/1898_Treaty_of_Paris
mw-redirect
1898 Treaty of Paris

values: International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

values: International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)

values: Edit section: Constitutional and international law

values: List of diplomatic missions of the United States

values: List of diplomatic missions in the United States

values: Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration

values: Human Rights Record of the United States

values: List of wars involving the United States

values: Overseas interventions of the United States

values: width:auto; float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 0.5em 1em; font-size: 85%;

values: border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0; border: 0; background:transparent; width:100%;

values:
nofollow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20874331/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40699.pdf

values: Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations

values:
/wiki/Executive_power
mw-redirect
Executive power

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1353%2Fjod.1996.0016

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F3177036

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=7853

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm

values:
nofollow
https://www.state.gov/g/drl/democ/
external text

values:
nofollow
https://www.state.gov/g/drl/
external text

values:
nofollow
https://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd/
external text

values:
nofollow
https://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0966-2839

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.asean.org/afp/111.htm

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: American Foreign Policy Since WWII (page does not exist)

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/424565

values:
nofollow
https://history.state.gov/countries/
external text

values:
nofollow
https://history.state.gov/milestones/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9488/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/552551

values: Agricultural policy of the United States

values: Climate change policy of the United States

values: Climate change policy of the George W. Bush administration

values: Domestic policy of the United States (page does not exist)

values: Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration

values: Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration

values:
/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Drug policy of the United States

values: Economic policy of the United States (page does not exist)

values: Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

values:
/wiki/Economic_policy_of_Barack_Obama
mw-redirect
Economic policy of Barack Obama

values: Energy policy of the Obama administration

values: Environmental policy of the United States

values: Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration

values: Foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration

values: Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

values: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration

values: Gun control policy of the United States (page does not exist)

values: Gun control policy of the Clinton Administration

values: Low-level radioactive waste policy of the United States

values: Native American policy of the United States (page does not exist)

values: Native American policy of the Nixon Administration

values: Native American Policy of the Obama Administration

values: Nuclear energy policy of the United States

values: Social policy of the United States (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Barack_Obama_social_policy
mw-redirect
Barack Obama social policy

values: Space policy of the George W. Bush administration

values: Space policy of the Barack Obama administration

values: Stem cell laws and policy in the United States

values: Telecommunications policy of the United States

values:
/wiki/Trade_policy_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Trade policy of the United States

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Template:Foreign relations of the United States

values: Template talk:Foreign relations of the United States

values: Central African Republic–United States relations

values: Democratic Republic of the Congo–United States relations

values: Republic of the Congo–United States relations

values: Equatorial Guinea–United States relations

values: São Tomé and Príncipe–United States relations

values: Dominican Republic–United States relations

values: Saint Kitts and Nevis–United States relations

values: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United States relations

values: Trinidad and Tobago–United States relations

values: Pakistan–United States military relations

values: United Arab Emirates–United States relations

values: Bosnia and Herzegovina–United States relations

values: Republic of Macedonia–United States relations

values: Marshall Islands–United States relations

values: Federated States of Micronesia–United States relations

values: Papua New Guinea–United States relations

values: Kingdom of Hawaii–United States relations

values: Republic of Texas–United States relations

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg

values:
navbox-image
3
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: Commonwealth of Nations–United States relations (page does not exist)

values: International organization membership of the United States

values: nowraplinks collapsible uncollapsed navbox-subgroup

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

values: Territorial evolution of the United States

values: African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)

values: African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)

values: History of the United States (1865–1918)

values: Military history of the United States during World War II

values: United States home front during World War II

values:
/wiki/Civil_Rights_Movement
mw-redirect
Civil Rights Movement

values: History of the United States (1991–2008)

values: History of the United States (2008–present)

values: Demographic history of the United States

values: Timeline of United States inventions (before 1890)

values: Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1945)

values: Timeline of United States inventions (1946–91)

values: Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991)

values: Postage stamps and postal history of the United States

values: Technological and industrial history of the United States

values: Lists of populated places in the United States

values: List of earthquakes in the United States

values: List of mountain peaks of the United States

values: List of areas in the United States National Park System

values: Water supply and sanitation in the United States

values: United States federal executive departments

values: Independent agencies of the United States government

values: Federal law enforcement in the United States

values: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

values: United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

values: Political divisions of the United States

values: List of states and territories of the United States

values: List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council

values: Political ideologies in the United States

values: List of federal political scandals in the United States

values: List of companies of the United States by state

values: Educational attainment in the United States

values: Professional and working class conflict in the United States

values: Criticism of the United States government

values: Federal drug policy of the United States

values: Environmental movement in the United States

values: Illegal immigration to the United States

values: International rankings of the United States

values: Separation of church and state in the United States

values:
/wiki/Book:United_States
mw-redirect
Book:United States

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from January 2017

values: Category:Articles with permanently dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from May 2016

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from May 2017

values: Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

values: Category:Pages with citations lacking titles

values: Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs

values: Category:Use American English from May 2015

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles written in American English

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from June 2015

values: Category:Articles with limited geographic scope from November 2013

values: Category:Articles to be merged from June 2016

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2013

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from November 2013

values: Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from February 2013

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: Външна политика на САЩ – Bulgarian

values: Außenpolitik der Vereinigten Staaten – German

values: Política exterior de los Estados Unidos – Spanish

values: سیاست خارجی ایالات متحده آمریکا – Persian

values: Politique étrangère des États-Unis – French

values: ԱՄՆ-ի արտաքին քաղաքականություն – Armenian

values: Dasar luar negeri Amerika Syarikat – Malay

values: アメリカ合衆国の外交政策 – Japanese

values: Politica externă a Statelor Unite – Romanian

values: Внешняя политика США – Russian

values: Foreign policy of the United States – Simple English

values: Зовнішня політика США – Ukrainian

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States rootpage-Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States skin-vector action-view