How the US Foreign Policy Border on Bullying

In recent years, why has U.S. foreign policy bordered on bullying?

• Intro:
  • The specifics of U.S. foreign policy have changed frequently with situations and how different presidential administrations have attempted to handle the situations with foreign policy approaches that have been deemed as “bullying”
• S foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws
  • Albright Doctrine
  • 1988 Secretary of State Albright declared that “if we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.”
  • America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People’s Republic of China. Washington‐​backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe.
  • the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those most affected—hence the rise of terrorism against the United States.
• Iran-U.S relations proving the bad decisions the U.S. has made concerning foreign policy
  • The Trump Administration allowing the killing of Qasem Soleimani
  • Bad move towards Iran-American relations
  • Important to consider, and often under-appreciated, how much the policy of
  • containing Iran has been strongly influenced by U.S. domestic politics and the interest of
  • certain lobby groups. As a result, two years into the second Clinton Administration, U.S.
  • foreign policy toward Iran was paradoxically more hostile than at any time since the Hostage Crisis despite the arguable fact that the real threat from Iran had subsided.
• Previous Presidential Administrations making terrible decisions regarding countries that make bad foreign policy calls
  • S. policy during the Bush administration demonstrated how we wanted China to be rather than forming a relationship with China
    • S. policy wanted America fully engaged with the regions dynamics and wanted to encourage China to be part of this dynamic
    • America adopted six premises to advance the outcome
  • The Trump Administrations foreign policy relations with Mexico
    • Border wall issue
  • Conclusion:
    • In conclusion, previous Presidential Administrations have lacked the integrity to form well establish connections leading to poor foreign policy decisions being made as well as having a systematic flaw within the system that plays a part in how foreign policy is seen as the U.S. bullying other countries. Also, the Iran-U.S. relations is testament to this argument.

ANSWER

How the US Foreign Policy Border on Bullying

Introduction

In the world today, foreign policy leadership is an ambiguous phrase. Previously, the term meant leading American citizens in the execution and formation of national policy. Unfortunately, most people today use this phrase to elaborate on how the United States leads other nations worldwide in the national arena. One, therefore, wonders why other countries should follow the United States’ leaders and not theirs. Somehow, the United States is recognized as the leader of the free world. The Foreign Policy Border of the United States has been stated to bully the neighboring countries and others worldwide[1]. For instance, during the former president Donald Trump’s reign, his reign bullied their neighbors like Mexico. Despite Mexico being one of its top Trade partners, the country suffered under this president’s governance. During this period, the then-president made his bid to call Mexican migrants gun-runners, and he vowed to keep them out of the United States with the construction of a wall. Apart from Mexico, during the Trump era, China and other countries were victims of his bullying. For instance, the United States showed hegemonic threats to countries whereby it gave hidden messages. The messages included threats that stated that if any country did not follow the United States’ policies, they would be dealt with like China. In simpler terms, the U.S. tries to cow other countries worldwide to submit by bullying them.

U.S. foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws

In the past few decades, the United States’ foreign policy can be described as disastrous. America’s foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws, more so from the weaknesses of one remembering the informal policy collective. According to former president Barrack Obama, he referred to the policy as “The Blob.”

Albright Doctrine

In 1998, Albright, the then Secretary of State, stated that if the U.S. had to use force, they did that because they were America’s indispensable nation. He further declared that as Americans, they stand tall and see further into the future than any other country. As a result, in their attempt to join the Korean War, they blundered, and they could barely achieve a satisfactory outcome. Similarly, for many years, Washington refused to engage the Republic of China. Possibly, the U.S.’s foreign policy leading fail was when they ignored the effect of foreign intervention. Why does America think it is an indispensable nation and that they are superior to other countries? They feel it is okay for them to use force because they are Americans. Instead of building teams with other nations, they try to make them like them or help them but take advantage of the achieved results.

The relationship between the U.S. and Iran is complicated. Things have changed over the past few years, but this relationship has stayed in the same place whatsoever. During Jimmy Carter’s presidential era, for instance, America came up with a policy of tools that resulted in Iran’s economic, military and political containment. The relationship between these two countries got worse last year when President Donald Trump ordered Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian General’s murder[2]. According to experts, the U.S. had no legal authority to launch such an Iranian military leader’s attack. There were other ways the matter could have been handled, including arresting the suspect as they wait for the law proceedings to determine his guilt. However, the attack and killing of this general took place without official notification. The U.S. took advantage of the situation and killed an Iranian military leader unlawfully. Yet, they could have arrested the suspect and charged him for the various crimes he was accused of.

During George Bush’s era, instead of focusing his energy on building a relationship with China, he focused more on how he wanted China. The administration made it clear that it sought to make China less central to the policy it made to Asia. Doing so would ensure that the Chinese relationship will continuously demand a considerable deal of attention, leading it back to needing America and going back to its agenda in case problems arose. America adopted six main premises to advance the outcomes of the administration, and they may include the following;

First, the United States and Asia were to benefit from China’s stability to meet the demands and needs of its people. Even though China is the most fast-changing society worldwide for the last two decades, it still faces economic and political challenges that often threaten its general stability[3]. Therefore, to solve the instability problem, China’s leaders have to work with the United States to adopt the liberalization reforms. Generally, the United States wanted to control China and keep it under its nose for it to be in a given way. Doing so only meant that the U.S. gained from China’s economy, and it could not do much without the U.S. This is bullying as the U.S. put China in a situation where it has to rely entirely on its political stability. The second premise was market-based economic development. This premise was associated with the integration and formation of the middle class and the production of liberalization impacts in China. China has become more like the United States and not like China in terms of development and technology.

The third premise gave America the fundamental interest in the acceptance of international rules and norms. When Beijing adopts both the rules and norms, the U.S. makes excellent progress. In sectors like nonproliferation, America has achieved progress. This is foreign bullying as the U.S. has put China in a position to accomplish something by accepting the norms and rules. China could sue them for interference and foreign bullying. The fourth premise stated that the U.S. has a national interest in making China believe that they are not hostile. Beijing is often worried about maintaining the country’s domestic stability, sustaining economic growth, and ensuring its territory’s integrity. However, it is scared that America may be interested in undermining all these. Having worked with America for a while, China understands how they operate, which is why they are afraid.

The 5th premise was for the U.S. to pursue one policy in China. Unfortunately for China, the U.S. has successfully pursued the premise in a compatible way with its values and interests. Since they were aware of the consequences of ignoring the rule, they found the best way to follow the approach and favors them more. One policy, but they made it about them and found ways they could benefit from it. Lastly, the final premise was maintaining peace and prosperity in Asia. Since China is diplomatically and economically active, the U.S. was to encourage constructive engagement of China.

Since the former president Donald Trump took office, his relationship between the president and Mexico was never good. First, as soon as he took office, he declared Mexican migrants as rapists and gun-runners. As a result, to control them, he opted to build a wall that separated and prevented Mexicans from coming to America[4]. According to many people, Trump bullied Mexicans, and he used the White House as the bullying pulpit to harass Mexican migrants. It was not right of him to declare all Mexicans gun-runners and rapists. Worse still, building a wall to separate the countries is considered bullying, and it was an unnecessary act. Let us take the example of other countries that have higher rape cases and victims. Anyone can rape another person. It does not matter whether or not they are of Mexican origin. Rape and having guns are all about choices and not a race. Trump banning Mexicans and going to the extent of building a wall was way beyond the necessary. It is more of bullying than looking out for American citizens. He declared whole race rapists because of crimes any American citizen could commit. That is bullying, and he took advantage of his position in the White House to do so.

Conclusion 

More so, most people of the United States fail to realize how their country bullies other nations worldwide. Previous presidential administrations have been unable to form proper connections that have resulted in America suffering from systematic flaws. A perfect example is evident from the former president Donald Trump who left office with a bitter taste in Mexican migrants’ mouths. Instead of working together with China as a team to make permanent connections, President George Bush focused more on trying to manipulate and change them. As a result, he completely lost them. America often feels superior to other countries, and instead of doing their best to work as a team, they usually try to be in control.

Bibliography

Ikenberry, G. John. “The plot against American Foreign Policy: Can the liberal order survive.” Foreign Aff. 96 (2017): 2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40204443

Mearsheimer, J.J., 2010. The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in Asia. The Chinese journal of international politics, 3(4), pp.381-396. https://academic.oup.com/cjip/article/3/4/381/439228

Qassem, Soleimani, and Jibrin Ubale Yahaya. “Politics of Middle East and the Killing of General.” (2020). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344302061_Politics_of_Middle_East_and_the_Killing_of_General_Soleimani_Qassem_African_Scholar_Journal_of_African_Sustainable_Development_JASD-2_62

Verney, Kevern. “Bad Hombres: The Trump Administration, Mexican Immigration and the Border Wall.” In The Trump Presidency, pp. 137-158. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.

[1][1] Ikenberry, G. John. “The plot against American Foreign Policy: Can the liberal order survive.” Foreign Aff. 96 (2017): 2.

[2] Qassem, Soleimani, and Jibrin Ubale Yahaya. “Politics of Middle East and the Killing of General.” (2020).

[3] Mearsheimer, J.J., 2010. The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in Asia. The Chinese journal of international politics, 3(4), pp.381-396.

[4] Verney, Kevern. “Bad Hombres: The Trump Administration, Mexican Immigration and the Border Wall.” In The Trump Presidency, pp. 137-158. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019.

To get your original copy of this completed paper, please Order Now