Information about Foreign Relations Of The United States

	This article or section has multiple issues:
	* Its neutrality is disputed. * Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words.
	Please help [ improve the article] or discuss these issues on the talk page.

For a history, see Timeline of United States diplomatic history

For the published diplomatic papers, see The Foreign Relations of the United States

United States of America
This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the United States
Federal government
Constitution Taxation
President Vice President Cabinet
Congress Senate President pro tem Party Leaders House Speaker Party Leaders Congressional districts
Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts
Elections
Presidential elections Midterm elections
Political Parties
Democratic Republican Third parties
State & Local government
Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government
Other countries    •  • [ edit]

The foreign relations of the United States are highly influential on the world stage. America's global reach is backed by a 13 trillion dollar economy. ^[1] Military intervention and deployments have been persistent components of U.S. foreign policy, see List of United States military history events, as have covert actions for regime change, see covert U.S. regime change actions.

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, 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 intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation."^[3]. American foreign policy has been the subject of much debate, criticism and praise both domestically and abroad.

Foreign policy powers of the president and Congress

Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.^[4] The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces once they are deployed, however Congress has the sole authority to declare war,^[5] and the civilian and military budget is written by the Congress.^[6] The Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

Brief history

The of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words". You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel words.

American foreign policy can be considered to have first emerged with the initiation of the "Olive Branch Policy", an attempt on the part of the new state of America to reconcile with Great Britain. During the American Revolution, the United States established relations with several European powers, convincing France, Spain, and the Netherlands to intervene in the war against Britain, a mutual enemy. In the period following, the U.S. oscillated between pro-French and pro-British policies. In general, the U.S. remained aloof from European disputes, focusing on territorial expansion in North America. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary pirate states amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800, therefore the punitive actions against the Barbary States of North Africa were launched by the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

After the Spanish colonies in Latin America declared independence, the U.S. established the Monroe Doctrine, a policy of keeping European powers out of the Americas. U.S. expansionism, justified by jingoist doctrines such as "manifest destiny", included war against Mexico, with the U.S. taking what are now the territories of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, and to diplomatic conflict with Britain and Russia over the Oregon Territory and with Spain over Florida and later Cuba. During the American Civil War, the U.S. accused Britain and France of supporting the Confederate States and accused France of trying to control Mexico. After the Civil War Anglo-American relations improved as the wartime cooperation continued. The most comprehensive treaty of the century was concluded at Washington on May 8th 1871 that resolved antebellum and wartime disputes. Meanwhile, American patience about the French military occupation of Mexico City to protect the puppet ruler Napoleon III had sent, Maximilian, succeeded. The French government became increasingly bankrupted by the Mexican initiative, said to be part of Napoleon III's "grand design" to modernize backward nations. His design was more fraudulent to spread his imperial power, which he was then unable to do in Europe or elsewhere such as in the Middle East. In 1866 and 1867 over 40,000 French troops were withdrawn from Mexico and, despite American Secretary of State William Henry Seward's entreaties on his behalf, Maximilian was executed. Actually with the end of British military persuasion after 1815, the U.S. was unchallenged in its home territory, except by Native Americans. Through the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, it strove to be the dominant influence in the Americas, trying to weaken European influence in Latin America and occasionally intervening to establish puppet governments in weak states.

As U.S. economic power grew, it began to look at interests farther abroad, particularly in the pursuit of trade. The U.S. conquered Cuba and Puerto Rico, occupied territories in the Pacific, such as Hawaii and the Philippines, demanded the opening of Japan to trade, and competed with other powers for influence in China, see Gunboat Diplomacy.

The U.S. entered World War I, emerging victorious with the Allies, after which it returned to more isolationist policies. The United States entered World War II in 1941, again on the Allied side, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war against the U.S. by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After the war, it was a major player in the establishment of the United Nations and became one of five permanent members of the Security Council.

During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy sought to limit the influence of the Soviet Union around the world (called "containment"), leading to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the overthrow of the Iranian government, and diplomatic actions like the opening of China and establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It also sought to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Britain as a global power, leading international economic organizations such as GATT. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. had military and economic interests in every region of the globe. In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States invaded Panama, officially because Noriega (the then dictator, and formerly on the CIA payroll) was involved in drug trafficking; many believe that, in reality, the US didn't want to relinquish the Panama canal on Panama's terms. In the 1980s the U.S. operated campaigns in Central America, supporting the organisation "Contras" in Nicaragua and the dictatorial governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. In 1986 the US was convicted of multiple violations of international law and breaches of treaties against Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. United States.

In 1991, the U.S. organized and led the Gulf War against Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait. After the September 11, 2001 attack, the country declared a "War on Terror," under which it has led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (Second Gulf War).

As of 2007, the U.S. is one of only two countries in the English-speaking world not to be a member of the Commonwealth (the other being the Republic of Ireland).

Diplomatic relations

The United States has one of the largest diplomatic presences of any nation. Almost every country in the world has both a U.S. embassy and an embassy of its own in Washington, D.C. Only a few countries do not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States. They are:

• Bhutan (The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India has consular responsibilities for Bhutan)^[7]
• Cuba
• Iran (the ambassador of Switzerland acts as intermediary between Tehran and Washington DC)
• North Korea
• Somalia (no widely recognized government)
• Republic of China (Taiwan) (recognized by fewer than 30 countries, including the Holy See of Vatican City)
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) (not recognized)

In practical terms however, this lack of formal relations do not impede the U.S.'s communication with these nations. In the cases where no U.S. diplomatic post exists, American relations are usually conducted via the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, or another friendly third-party. In the case of the Republic of China (Taiwan), de-facto diplomatic relations are conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan. The U.S. also operates an "Interests Section in Havana". While this does not create a formal diplomatic relationship, it fulfils most other typical embassy functions.

The U.S. maintains a Normal Trade Relations list and several countries are excluded from it, which means that their exports to the United States are subject to significantly higher tariffs.

Allies

Further information: special relationship

Further information: anglosphere

The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 26 nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. This is restricted to within the North American and European areas, and for this reason the U.S. was not compelled to participate in the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

The United States has also given major non-NATO ally-status to fourteen nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

The country's closest ally is arguably the United Kingdom, although Australia and Canada have also proved to be extremely resilient allies.

Other allies include South Korea, Israel, Germany, Turkey, and Japan. The island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan), does not have official diplomatic relations recognized and is no longer officially recognized by the State Department of the United States, but it conducts unofficial diplomatic relations through their de-facto Embassy, commonly known as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)," and is considered to be a strong Asian ally of the United States.

In 2005, U.S. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a landmark agreement between the two countries on civilian nuclear energy cooperation. The deal is significant because India is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and detonated a nuclear device in 1974. The deal will greatly increase strategic and economic cooperation between the world's two largest democracies^[8].

US State secretary Condoleezza Rice signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement with Bulgaria, a new NATO member, in 2006. The treaty allows the US (not NATO) to develop as joint US-Bulgarian facilities the Bulgarian air bases at Bezmer (near Yambol) and Graf Ignatievo (near Plovdiv), the Novo Selo training range (near Sliven), and a logistics centre in Aytos, as well as to use the commercial port of Burgas. At least 2,500 US personnel will be located there. The treaty also allows the US to use the bases "for missions in tiers country without a specific authorization from Bulgarian authorities," and grants US militaries immunity from prosecution in this country ^[9]. Another agreement with Romania permits the US to use the Mihail Kogălniceanu base and another one nearby ^[9].

Relations with Latin America

Main article: United States-Latin American relations

Concerns have been raised following both the signature of a military training agreement with Paraguay, which accorded immunity to U.S. soldiers from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and was indefinitely renewable (something which had never been done before, while Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Paraguay and, for the first time ever, Paraguayan president Nicanor Duarte Frutos went to the White House), and the construction of a U.S. military base near the airport of Mariscal Estigarribia, within 200 km of Argentina and Bolivia and 300 km of Brazil. The airport can receive large planes (B-52, C-130 Hercules, etc.) which the Paraguayan Air Force does not possess. ^{[10] [11]}. The governments of Paraguay and the United States subsequently ostensibly declared that the use of an airport (Dr Luís María Argaña International)[1] was one point of transfer for few soldiers in Paraguay at the same time. According to the Argentine newspaper Clarín, the U.S. military base is strategic because of its location near the Triple Frontier, its proximity to the Guaraní Aquifer, and its closeness to Bolivia (less than 200 km) at the same "moment that Washington's magnifying glass goes on the Altiplano [Bolivia] and points toward Venezuelan [president] Hugo Chávez — the regional devil according to the Bush administration — as the instigator of the instability in the region" (El Clarín ^[11]). In October 2006, US President George W. Bush was reported to be negotiating for purchase of a 400 km² ranch near Marriscal Estigarribia ^[12][13].

But Paraguay decided in October 2006 not to renew the immunity granted to US soldiers. The other members of the Mercosur trade bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela) have so far refused to grant immunity to U.S. troops. All four nations have in recent years elected leftist governments critical of U.S. policy (Lula in Brazil, Nestor Kirschner in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela) ^[14]

Criticism and responses

Critics of U.S. foreign policy point out the contradiction between the lofty foreign policy rhetoric of noble causes espoused by the government and its actions which are seen as machiavelian and hypocritical. [2] [3][4][5][6][7]

These include:

• The long list of U.S. military involvements that stand in contrast to the rhetoric of promoting peace and respect for the soverighty of nations.
• The many former and current dictatorships that receive or received U.S. financial or military support, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, despite claiming to support democracy and democratic principals.
• The U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood, steel and agricultural products, in contrast to stating support for free trade.
• Claims of generosity, in contrast to low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries.
• Lack of support for environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol.
• Frequent mention of concern for human rights, despite refusing to ratify the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the widespread support of dictatorial governments whose military the US may have formerly trained on methods of torture (notably in the infamous former School of the Americas), and support for terrorism, for example the Contras in Nicaragua.

Charges of negative influence have been levied even in countries traditionally considered allies of the United States.^[15]

There are a variety of responses to these criticisms. For instance, some argue that the increased American military involvement around the world is an outgrowth of the inherent instability of the world state system as it existed in the late 19th century. The inherent failings of this system led to the outbreak of World War I and World War II. The United States has assumed a prominent peacekeeping role, on its own terms, due to the easily demonstrable inter-state insecurity that existed before 1945.

Further, some opinions have stated that since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a war to defend against an imminent threat, it was a war of aggression, and therefore under the Nuremberg Principles it constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow. For example, Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[16] Similarly, under the United Nations Charter, ratified by the U.S. and therefore binding on it, all U.N. member states including the U.S. are prohibited from using force against fellow member states (Iraq is a member of the U.N.) except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit U.N. Security Council authorization (U.N. Charter; international law). "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war.^[17] A frequent rebuttal to this criticism is the assertion that the United Nations gave the United States and its coalition partners the legal authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, providing that Iraq would "face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Other realist critics, such as George F. Kennan, have argued that the responsibility of the United States is only to protect the rights of its own citizens, and that therefore Washington should deal with other governments on that basis alone. Realists charge that a claimed heavy emphasis on democratization (however, this is not mentioned in Wilson's Fourteen Points) or nation-building abroad was one of the major tenets of President Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic philosophy, and the failure of the League of Nations to enforce the will of the international community in the cases of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in the 1930s, as well as the inherent weakness of the new states created at the Paris Peace Conference, demonstrated the folly of Wilson's idealism. However, an important explanation for the weakness of the League of Nations was the refusal of the US to join after Wilson's death.

There is also criticism of alleged human rights abuse, the most important recent examples of which are the multiple reports of alleged prisoner abuse and torture at U.S.-run detention camps in Guantánamo Bay (at "Camp X-ray") (in Cuba), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), secret CIA prisons (eastern Europe), and other places voiced by, e.g. the Council of Europe and Amnesty International. Amnesty International in its Amnesty International Report 2005 [8] says that: "the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times" [9]. This Amnesty report also claimed that there was a use of double standards in the U.S. government: the U.S. president "has repeatedly asserted that the United States was founded upon and is dedicated to the cause of human dignity". (Theme of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2004). But some memorandums emerged after the Abu Ghraib scandal "suggested that the administration was discussing ways in which its agents could avoid the international ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment" [10]. Government responses to these criticisms include that Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and the network of secret CIA jails in Eastern Europe and the Middle East were largely isolated incidents and not reflective of general U.S. conduct, and at the same time maintain that coerced interrogation in Guantánamo and Europe is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.

U.S. generosity is not demonstrated in the relatively low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries. However as far as measured by goods and monetary amounts the U.S is the most generous. Religious tithes, emergency donations to relief organizations, and donations to medical research, for example, are common and frequent. The United States tax code structure is designed to further this type of charitable donation by private individuals and corporations.

Regarding support for various dictatorships, especially during the Cold War, a response is that the alternatives were usually even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. It is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations the population often lack literacy, education, and are otherwise too poor to be able to fully participate in a democratic process. Thus, it is argued that supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth may be the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually leads to democratization. Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[11]

Many of these former foes has democratized and many became US allies. The Philippines (1946), South Korea (1948), West Germany (1949), Japan (1952), Austria (1955), the Panama Canal Zone (1979), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples of former possessions that have gained independence. Many nations in Eastern Europe have joined NATO. (Note, statements regarding degree of democracy are based on the classification at these times in the Polity data series).

Many democracies have voluntary military alliances 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 US can spend less on the military since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.[12][13]

Today the US states that democratic nations best support US national interests. "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."[14] Former 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."^[18] In one view mentioned by the US 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, 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.[15]

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools[16],although its commitment to human rights is disputed by human rights organizations.^[19][20] Examples of these tools are as follows:

• A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" in compliance with a 2002 law which requires the Department to report on actions taken by the U.S. Government to encourage respect for human rights.http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd/
• A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices."http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/
• In 2006 the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards."http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c20063.htm
• The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/77769.htm
• The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly-confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c18970.htm

Territorial disputes

The United States is involved with several territorial disputes, including maritime disputes over the Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Northwest Passage, and areas around Machias Seal Island and North Rock with Canada. ^[21] These disputes have become dormant recently, and are largely considered not to affect the strong relations between the two nations.

Other disputes include:

• U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay is leased from Cuba and only mutual agreement or U.S. abandonment of the area can terminate the lease. Cuba contends that the lease is invalid as the Platt Amendment creating the lease was included in the Cuban Constitution under threat of force and thus is voided by article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
• Haiti claims Navassa Island.
• U.S. has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other nation.
• Marshall Islands claims Wake Island.

Illicit drugs

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to halt imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. 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 which 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 [17], 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 twelve 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 marijuana continues. The U.S. believes that The Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

Military aid

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.

Of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.^[22]

History of exporting democracy

Further information: Democratic peace theory

Further information: Iran Freedom and Support Act

In the history of the United States, presidents have often used democracy as a justification for military intervention abroad,^[23][24], although on a number of other occasions the U.S. overthrew democratically elected governments (See Operation Ajax, Operation PBSUCCESS, Covert U.S. Regime Change Actions). A number of studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Most studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the history of the United States exporting democracy.^[25] 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."^[26][27]

But some studies, such as a study by Tures find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,<ref name="operation" /> and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.^[28]

Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy

Professor Paul W. Drake explains that the United States first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argues that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." Democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and American leaders usually defined democracy as elections only. Further the United States Department of State disapproved of any rebellion of any kind, which were often incorrectly labeled "revolutions", even against dictatorships.^[29] As historian Walter LaFeber states, "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."^[30]

Mesquita and Downs evaluate the period between 1945 to 2004. They state that the U.S. has intervened in 35 countries, and only in one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within 10 years.^[31] Samia Amin Pei argues that nation building in developed countries usually begins to unravel four to six years after American intervention ends. Pei, quoting Polity, (a database on democracy in the world), agrees with Mesquita and Downs that most countries where the U.S. intervenes never becomes a democracy or becomes more authoritarian after 10 years.^[32]

Professor Joshua Muravchik argues that U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after World War II, but America's failure to build democracy in the third world "prove...that U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."^[33][34] The success of democracy in former Axis countries maybe because of these countries per-capita income. Steven Krasner of the CDDRL states that a high per capita income may help build a democracy, because no democratic country with a per-capita income which is above $6,000 has ever become an autocracy.^[29]

Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results

Tures examines 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.^[25]

Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy

Hermann and Kegley find that American military interventions which are designed to protect or promote democracy increase freedom in those countries.^[28] Penceny argues 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."^[36] Therefore, Penceny 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.^[37]

Penceny states that the United States has attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 twentieth-century military interventions.^[38] Penceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.^[39]

Quotes

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

Highly decorated Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, who in 1934 exposed a plot to mount a coup against the Roosevelt administration, was a popular lecturer on the left-wing circuit who claimed:

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.[40]

See also

History of U.S. expansion and influence

American Empire

Foreign relations

List of military actions

Non-interventionism

Opposition to foreign policy

Overseas expansion

Overseas interventions

Pax Americana

Territorial acquisitions

This box:  •  • [ edit]

• American empire
• American diplomatic missions
• American Interventions in the Middle East
• Council on Foreign Relations
• Energy policy of the United States
• Extraordinary rendition
• 2003 invasion of Iraq
• List of joint US-Bulgarian military bases
• List of United States military history events
• Special relationship
• Timeline of United States diplomatic history
• United States and the United Nations
• United States, Chanceries of Foreign Governments
• Unlawful combatant

Relations with specific foreign nations:

* Afghanistan: United States-Afghanistan relations

* Australia: United States-Australia relations

* Brazil: Brazilian-American relations

* Bulgaria: Bulgarian-American relations

* Canada: Canada-United States relations

* China: Sino-American relations

* Colombia: Colombia-United States relations

* Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast): United States-Côte d'Ivoire relations

* Cuba Cuba-United States relations

* Czech Republic Czech-American relations

* France: Franco-American relations

* Germany: German-American relations

* India: Indo-American relations

* Iran: U.S.-Iran relations

* Israel: Israel-United States relations

* Mexico: United States-Mexico relations

* New Zealand: New Zealand-United States relations

* North Korea: U.S.-North Korea relations

* Japan: Japan-American relations

* Pakistan: U.S.-Pakistan relations

* Poland: Polish-American Relations

* Russia: Russo-United States relations

* South Korea: South Korea-U.S. relations

* Turkey: Turkey-United States relations

* United Kingdom: Anglo-American relations

* Venezuela: United States-Venezuela relations

Relations with specific foreign organizations:

* United Nations: United States and the United Nations

References

External links

• "How the World Sees America", Amar C. Bakshi, "Washington Post/Newsweek", 2007.
• Getting beyond the Bush Doctrine, Edward A. Kolodziej, Center for Global Studies, December, 2006.
• A site critical of U.S. foreign policy during the last 60 years
• U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy, a Background Q&A by cfr.org, the website of the Council on Foreign Relations
• U.S. State Dept. Documentary: Foreign Relations of the United States
• Foreign Relations of the United States 1861-1960 (full text from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries)
• Timeline of U.S. diplomatic history
• Introduction to U.S. foreign aid
• Foreign aid by country
• India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States"
• An analysis of the strained love-hate relationship between U.S. and Pakistan by Prof. Adil Najam of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy published in The News International
• Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index Tracking survey of American public attitudes on foreign policy, conducted by Public Agenda with Foreign Affairs magazine.
• Speech by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on U.S. Policy in Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation on October 25, 2006
• An interactive map of some examples of a sampling of U.S. Foreign Policy

Further reading

History of exporting democracy

• Barro, Robert J. (Spring 2002). "Democracy in Afghanistan: Don't Hold Your Breath". Hoover Digest (2). *
• Carothers, Thomas (January/February 2003). "Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror". Foreign Affairs: 84. *
• Diamond, Larry (2004). "The Long Haul". Hoover Digest (2). *
• Forsythe, David P. (2000). "U.S. Foreign Policy and Enlarging the Democratic Community". Human Rights Quarterly 22 (4): 988-1010. *
• Gleditsch, Nils Petter; Lene Siljeholm, Havard Hegre (April 13-18 2004). "Democratic Jihad? Military Intervention and Democracy". Paper presented at the workshop on Resources, Governance Structure and Civil War, Uppsala, Sweden.  Finds that democratizatioin is unpredictable in the long-term.
• Hay, William Anthony (April 28 2006). "Can Democracy Be Imposed from the Outside?". Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI).  Alternative link. International history of exporting democracy. In the United States after idealism fails, the goal becomes a realist focus on stability and the protection of American interests.
• Hermann, Margaret G.; Charles W. Kegley, Jr.. "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions 24 (2): 91-114.  Uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.
• Krasner, Stephen D. (November 26 2003). "We Don't Know How To Build Democracy". Los Angeles Times. *
• Lawson, Chappell; Strom C. Tucker (2003). "Democracy? In Iraq?". Hoover Digest 3 (3).  This study points to 19 cases of U.S. intervention "in the last century," including Afghanistan, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Germany, Grenada, Haiti, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Somalia, South Korea, and South Vietnam. In half of these cases democratic institutions remained, in the other half they did not. To determine the success of Iraq becoming a democracy, this study uses data compiled by Freedom House measuring democracy in 186 countries, during four years, the years 1996 through 2000.
• Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1. 
• Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391-402. 
• Pei, Samia Amin; Seth Garz (March 17 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune.  The study finds that democracies built by the U.S. begin to unravel in the decade after U.S. forces depart, because political elites begin to change the law to fit their own interests. This study points to 14 cases of U.S. intervention in the twentieth century.
• Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.  This book finds that when the U.S. interventions later supported elections, the democracy was more likely to succeed. This study points to 25 cases of U.S. intervention between 1898 and 1992.
• Review: Shifter, Michael (Winter 2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society. 
• 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. 
• Tures, John A.. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations". Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations. PDF file. This study points to 30 U.S. interventions between 1945 and 1991. Also uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.
• Tures, John A.. "To Protect Democracy (Not Practice It): Explanations of Dyadic Democratic Intervention (DDI) The Use of Liberal Ends to Justify Illiberal Means". OJPCR: The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution. 

•  • [ e] United States Foreign Policy
Doctrines	Presidential Proclamation of Neutrality Monroe Doctrine Roosevelt Corollary Truman Doctrine Eisenhower Doctrine Kennedy Doctrine Johnson Doctrine Nixon Doctrine Carter Doctrine Reagan Doctrine Clinton Doctrine Bush Doctrine Other Lodge Corollary Containment Domino theory Rollback Stimson Doctrine Kirkpatrick Doctrine Weinberger Doctrine Powell Doctrine Rumsfeld Doctrine Wolfowitz Doctrine
Bilateral relations	Transatlantic Czech Republic European Union France Germany Greece Poland Sweden TurkeyUnited Kingdom ANZUS Australia New Zealand Latin American Brazil Colombia Cuba Ecuador Mexico Venezuela CIS Belarus Kazakhstan Russia East Asian China Japan North Korea South Korea Taiwan South Asian Afghanistan India Pakistan Middle Eastern Iran Israel Sub-Saharan African Angola Cte d'Ivoire Other Canada United Nations Former Russian Empire Soviet Union