( Politic ) Critically assess the impact of the use of force as a foreign policy instrument by the United States¦.. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦..3 1.1 US Foreign Policy Development¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦..3 1.2 The Middle East Problem¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦.5 1.3 Conclusion¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦9 Reference¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦. 1.0 Introduction The way the United States interacts with foreign nations, the standards the country has set for interactions for its organizations, citizens and corporations can be referred to as the foreign policy of the United States (Kleiner, 2012). United States has grown to be a highly influential country in the world in spheres ranging from military to economic areas and has set democracy standards that have served as a mirror for most countries in the world. The Foreign Policy Agenda has some stated goals of the United State’s foreign policy. These goals are to create a more secure, democratic and prosperous world that will go a long way to benefit the American people and the international Community at large. Furthermore, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs has asserted that its jurisdiction includes exporting of control which includes the non-proliferation of nuclear technology and other measures necessary to boost commercial transactions with other countries and to make sure that America’s businesses around the globe, international education, protection of its citizens around the globe and the international commodity agreements are safeguarded. This has led the country to be very aggressive and in the process gain praise and criticism from all corners of the planet. 1.1 US Foreign Policy Development American foreign policy recently can be associated with the Wilsonian school of international relation a shift from the Realist school. There has been a shift from the non-interventionism stand the country had before the American Revolution. George Washington in his farewell address stated that observing good faith and justice toward all nations, living in peace and harmony with everyone and cultivating the same values as core elements of American foreign policy. Expansion of foreign trade in the 19th Century marked the steady expansion of the United States foreign policies. However, the country still maintained its policy of avoiding external conflicts. The 20th Century was different however, the United States together with the allied powers defeated their enemies and hence increasing United States international reputation. President Wilson consequently came up with the Wilsonianism agenda and program of spreading democracy combating militarism to bring to and end wars. This was the beginning of a journey of interventionism which the country had not wanted to take since inception. It led to United States financing the Allied powers during the Second World War in their fight against Germany and Japan. President Roosevelt financed and equipped the Allied armies but never sent American soldiers on the battleground. America was referred to as an Arsenal of Democracy, and its main aim was to threaten Japan out of China. The actions of President Roosevelt triggered Japan to attack Pearl Harbour and this forced the United Sates to be at war with Japan, Italy and German. The use of force began with the United States first of all giving lend-lease grants instead of loans to the allied powers. The American forces were then forced into the pacific to fight against Japan. Troops were further sent to North Africa to fight against Italy and German. In Europe, troops were sent to France and Italy to fight the Germans. As a result of these wars, the American economy boomed and the industrial production doubled, further, the Unite States emerged as a dominant non-colonial economic power with immense influence globally. This has continued to be the case till the present time. Most people have however questioned the use of force as a foreign policy instrument by the United States to further its foreign policies. The government has sited economic and political reasons to advocate the use of force to assert its authority, and to justify the use of force. 1.2 The Middle East problem The Middle East region has recently been of great interest to the United States. I will use this region to analyse the effectiveness of the use of force as a foreign policy instrument used to further political and economic interests of the United States. The Middle East is known for the abundance of one natural resource, oil. It has made the Russian and British empires both thirst for control over the region during the 2nd World war. Oil, especially during the World Wars was necessary for troop’s transportations and driving of industries for the production of weapons. During this period, United States presence was very minute, in fat it was mainly characterised by civilian population in Iran (Deborah, 1949-1953). Most of the natives welcomed the presence of the United States as they considered the country a saviour from the Russian Empire. United States invested a lot of money in the region and it main aim was to maintain a balance of power within the region to favour Western strategic and economic interest. From 1942 onwards, the United States has played a significant role in Iraq’s politics. From the onset of this time, the US promoted the ideals of the Atlantic Charter and also tried securing Iraq’s petroleum. The strategic position of Iraq and the abundance of petroleum resources have made it along with Iran and Saudi Arabia (representing the Gulf region) hot spots which the US is trying to secure militarily and economically (Quest Offshore, 2011). The United States (after the 9/11 attacks) decided to use force against Iraq with over 90,000 troops invading Iraq (WEBSTER, 2011). The administration of the then President George W, Bush stated that the basis of the invasion was information that there existed weapons of mass destruction which if not eliminated would have been used to attack the United States (KERTON, 2008). Moreover, the United States justified the attacks as part of a grand scheme on the war on terror after the 9/11 attacks. Additionally the war was based on the pretext that the United States through military force could transform societies. The idea of using force to transform society to conform to the interests of US came in the early 1990’s. Neo-conservatism during this period was embraced and eager to urge war. However, so did humanitarian interventionism (Wertheim, 2010). Humanitarian interventionism was in practise however as early as the 19th Century. United States at beginning of the 21st Century used it as a central pole to drive its agenda on global leadership. The United States has used interventionism not as an emergency option but as a permanent programme that required special doctrines. It has been documented that the Bush Administration had been discussing the invasion of Iraq even before the 9/11 events (Woodward, 2004). The United States action on Iraq was the creation of a democratic state in the Middle East that would serve as an example to other Middle East countries on the benefits of a democratic system of governance (McClellan, 2008). The United States has always considered protecting its interest around the globe. Such interests cannot be protected in the absence of good governance. This is why the government of the United States, uses force to restore ˜failed sates’ (John, 2011). The United States considers the failed states as a huge challenge to American national security and international peace and stability. They have always been viewed to act as brooders of international terrorist groups like the al Qaeda. Lack of stable governance in these countries has over the years seen them act as transit points for human trafficking, illicit drugs, weapons of mass destruction and overall channels for the abuse of human rights. It is a well documented fact that after the 2nd World War, many people have died as a result internal conflicts; this is the problem that the United States and its allies try solving in a bid to restore stability. The presence of the United States is being felt by the failed states as the US is rebuilding these nations on a bigger scale. For instance in Iraq, the US is building roads, schools, and is helping in training more government officials. In Haiti and Liberia the US intervened to stop the civil wars that were ripping those countries apart. Additionally, US troops still remain in Kosovo monitoring the Bosnia peace accord of 1995. Some of the nations such as Iraq “as earlier on mentioned the country was invaded due to the information of the presence of WMD’s “ are nations the United States considered rogue, invaded them and now the US is busy rebuilding these nations. All these forceful interventions by the United States have got one thing in common; the main purpose is to help rebuild the state control institutions while focusing on implementing a viable democracy and a market economy. This is supported by the US/Iran relationship. During the 1940’s American presence in Iran was purely for economic and political development (Yonah & Allan, 1980). The US wanted to create a stable economic and political system that was going to guarantee uninterrupted exports of oil as well as alienating the Soviets (Libertas, 2010). However with time, Iran has proved a difficult ally and focus was shifted to Iraq to provide what Iran was withholding. So far it has been established that for the protection of American interests abroad, good governance (by this, i mean government officials who share the same ideals with the US) has to be in place. Furthermore the protection of American economy is vital. To date the US is one of the biggest consumers of petroleum products. Therefore, gaining access to the drilling and refining of oil and oil products is more important if the United States is to sustain its economy. This issue has been on the table as early as the 2nd World war when American officials saw the importance of Middle East oil. Under the Roosevelt administration, discussions were undergoing about Iraq being a post-war supplier of oil (O’Sullivan& Damluji, 2009). Wallace Murray was convinced that Iraq had great oil resources and it covered the richest petroleum lands in the world, additionally it was abundant with rich resources not found in other state. This helped increase the US oil-driven foreign policy in Iraq (P minutes 49, 1943). The US had 24% share held by American oil companies’ consortiums in the Iraq Petroleum Company (Murray, 1940). Regime change in Iraq contributed a lot in the US losing grip on the oil business that it used to develop its economy. The Saddam Hussein regime did not share the same interests that were shared with Nuri (Alling, 1943). Nuri had extended a welcoming hand to the Roosevelt administration to help Iraq mine its vast oil resources (Byrnes, 1943). The US had expressed the desire to utilize the abundance of Iraq oil and wanted to contribute to exploitation this advantage. The American Reserve Corporation (PRC) creation further facilitated exploitation of Iraq oil fields. Furthermore it facilitated the construction of new pipelines and expansion of the refining capacity. This was short lived especially after Nuri’s assassination (Joseph Grew, 1945) The Invasion of Iraq by the US led to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime and a redraw of the Middle East geopolitical map (Falah, Flint, & Mamadouh, 2006). It is evident that the United States wanted to conquer Iraq in order to regain control of the oil fields and turn Iraq into a central point for the protection of American interest (Haass & Indyk, 2009). Furthermore, with the recent economic sanctions placed on Iran, the Iranian government has ceased to export oil to the Western world and is looking for alternative markets elsewhere. In fact, it is looking into not selling their oil in US Dollars, something that is going to hurt the US economy. Therefore, Iraq has and is playing a vital role in ensuring the constant supply of oil to American industries, and is helping in countering Iran’s move to alienate the use of American currency to buy and sell oil. Furthermore, it is ensuring the survival of the manufacturing industries in America and consequently ensuring economic stability. The United States political influence has further been exemplified in the recent overthrow and assassination of the Libyan regime of Muamar Gaddafi. Ensuring of democratic governments in these regions goes along way into protecting American economy “by provision of oil- as well as helping the United States assert its political influence on these states. 1.3 Conclusion The use of force by the US has been selective so far, with the country choosing to act on countries whose stability guarantees the US of economic survival. Questions have been raised on why the US failed to act on the Rwandan Genocide case, simple reason is because the US had no interests on the Rwandan country. Therefore it is clear that, the use of force by the US only serves to spread its global agenda of economic and political control. In short the United States foreign policy. References Alling. (November 6, 1943 )œThe situation with respect to oil concessions in the Middle East, Lot File 78D440, R.G. 59, NARA; Henderson, œConversation with the Iraqi Prime Minister Concerning the American Interest in Near Eastern Oil, February 29, 1944, Central Files, 890G.6363/422, R.G. 59, NARA. Byrnes. (June 26, 1942 )œMemorandum for the President, October 4, 1943, OF 56, box 3, FDRL; US Naval Attaché to Chief of Naval Operations, Summary of conditions in Persian Gulf area, with enclosure: œNotes of possible interest on the Persian Gulf Area, Central Files, 891.00/1921, R.G. 59, NARA. Deborah, K. (1999), œVoice of America and Iran, 1949-1953: US Liberal Developmentalism, Propaganda and the Cold War, Intelligence and National Security 14, no. 3 165. Falah, G, Flint, C, & Mamadouh, V. (200, ˜Just War and Extraterritoriality: The Popular Geopolitics of the United States’ War on Iraq as Reflected in Newspapers of the Arab World’, Annals Of The Association Of American Geographers, 96, 1, pp. 142-164, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2012. Haass, R, & Indyk, M. (2009), ˜Beyond Iraq: A New U.S. Strategy for the Middle East’, Foreign Affairs, 88, 1, pp. 41-58, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2012. John, Y 2011, ˜Fixing Failed States’, California Law Review, 99, 1, pp. 95-150, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2012. Joseph, G. (May 29, 1945). Memorandum of conversation, FRUS, 1945, Vol. XIII, 49“51. Yonah A, Allan N, the United States and Iran: A Documentary History (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1980), 189-191. KERTON-JOHNSON, N. (2008). ˜Justifying the use of force in a post-9/11 world: striving for hierarchy in international society’, International Affairs, 84, 5, pp. 991-1007, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2012. Kleiner, J. (2009). Diplomatic Practice: Between Practice and Innovation. Boston University Libertas. (2010). American Foreign Policy in Iran. McClellan, S. (2008). What Happened: Inside the Bush White House & Washington’s Culture of Deception. Public Affairs. Murray. (March 27, 1940). œMemorandum on US interest in Iraqi oil,, Central Files, 890G.6363 T 84/637, R.G. 59, NARA; Max Thornburg, œMiddle East Oil, May 26, 1943, Middle East Oil files, box 12, Henderson Papers; œIraq Petroleum Company, September 5, 1942, Central Files, 890G.6363/ 375, R.G. 59, NARA. O’Sullivan, C, & Damluji, M. (2009). ˜The Origins of American Power in Iraq, 1941“1945², Peace & Change, 34, 3, pp. 238-259, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2012. œP minutes 49. (March 27, 1943). Postwar Planning Profile of Iraq, P document 54, August 27, 1942, Notter Files, R.G. 59, NARA; Hull, œMemorandum for the President: Desire of Iraqi Regent to Visit the United States, April 12, 1944, OF 713, FDRL. Quest Offshore. (2011). United States Gulf Of Mexico Oil and Natural Gas Industry Economic Impact Analysis: The Economic Impacts of GOM and Natural Gas Development on the US Economy. Quest Offshore Resources. Wertheim, S. (2010)., ˜A solution from hell: the United States and the rise of humanitarian interventionism, 1991-2003², Journal Of Genocide Research, 12, 3/4, pp. 149-172, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2012. WEBSTER, G.R. (2011). ˜AMERICAN NATIONALISM, THE FLAG, AND THE INVASION OF IRAQ’, Geographical Review, 101, 1, pp. 1-18, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2012. Woodward, B. (2004). Plan of Attack. Simon & Shusler Press order button now¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦..