The document discusses several key aspects of US foreign policy: - It outlines the shift in US foreign policy from non-interventionism to global hegemony over the 20th century. - It analyzes US goals of expanding democracy and capitalism in response to the rise of communism during the Cold War. - It examines recent challenges like the new administration's approach to relations with China, Russia, allies, and issues like climate change and North Korea. - It warns that an escalating confrontation between the US and China could freeze global cooperation and harm the world economy.

1. The US Foreign Policy
3 November 2017

2. • https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/political-
science/17-40-american-foreign-policy-past-
present-future-fall-2010/lecture-
notes/MIT17_40F10_THEORIES.pdf

3. • The practioners versus theorist.
• The theorists and academicians have long
developed the notion that conflicts arise from
punishment applied in the false expectation that
it will elicit better behavior from the other side,
when in fact it elicits worse behavior. Angered or
frightened by the punishment, the other
becomes more aggressive- adopting wider aims,
and/or becoming more willing to use force to
defend them.

4. • Is the other state an aggressor or a status quo
power? Does the other have large aims
beyond those declared? If the other is an
aggressor, it will infer weakness from any
concessions. It is safest to apply sticks when
the other is an aggressor.

5. US Concerns/Accusations:
An unstable Pakistan?
• Al-Qaeda uses Pakistan as a haven, and the
Afghan Taliban uses Pakistan as a base for its
rampaging in Afghanistan. Some in the
Pakistan military are religious extremists. And
Pakistan has 40-60 nuclear weapons. So
terrorists might gain WMD there too. So let's
stabilize it! But how??? Serious thought is
needed. Some analysts think Pakistan is the
most dangerous place in the world. Does the
U.S. has no plan to address it.

6. Accusations
• The India-Pakistan conflict: This conflict is
fuelling Islamic terrorism, radicalism in
Pakistan, and Pakistani support for the Taliban
insurgency in Afghanistan. Is it time for the
U.S. to push for a peace settlement? Could the
U.S. achieve one?

7. Policy Alternatives
• How can Americans prevent themselves from
unwittingly spiralling into conflict with Islam?
Robert Jervis warns that states tend to
underestimate their own role in provoking
others hostility. Surely Americans, like others,
are prone to this error.
• Does this make the U.S ripe for a conflict spiral
with Islam? Could the U.S. be led or baited
into such a spiral?

8. Policy Options
• U.S. and China: could Taiwan suck the U.S.
into war with the mainland? And compare this
possibility with Robert Kagan's scenario for
war between the U.S. and China: could the
U.S. appease its way into a war with the
mainland?

9. • Policy tactics and tools: Unilateralism. a.
Unilateral foreign policy tactics: are they
effective? i. Unilateralists such as Richard Perle
and John Bolton argue: multilateralism lets
misguided allies tie America's hands and impede
needed U.S. action. They also argue that others
will be inspired to follow if the U.S. boldly leads
alone. ii. Others reply: America's main interests--
especially controlling the spread of WMD,
defeating terror, and preserving the global
environment--are shared by other major powers
and are best protected by common action.

10. Goals of the US Foreign Policy
• The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of
the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign
Policy Agenda of the Department of State (2015),
are "to build and sustain a more democratic,
secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of
the American people and the international
community."

11. United States House Committee on
Foreign Affairs (2015)
"export controls, including non-proliferation 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."

12. U.S. Constitution on Foreign Policy
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.

13. Shift in FP Approach
• Shift has been seen from non-
interventionism before and after World War I, to
its becoming a world power and
global hegemony during and since World War II
and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century
(1989/1991).
• Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also
has been characterized by a shift from the realist
school [that world politics ultimately is always
and necessarily a field of conflict among actors
pursuing power] to the idealistic
or Wilsonian school of international relations

14. Wilsoniaism Principles
• Common principles that are often associated
with "Wilsonianism" include:
• Emphasis on self-determination of peoples.
• Advocacy of the spread of democracy
• Advocacy of the spread of capitalism
• Opposition to isolationism and non-
interventionism
• In favour of intervention
• Transparency in Agreements ???

15. World War I and II
• During 20th century, the US, along with allied
powers, was victorious which increased its
international stature.
President Wilson's Fourteen Points were
developed based on his
idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading
democracy and fighting militarism so as to end
any wars.
• The US adopted a non-interventionist foreign
policy (1932-1938). President Franklin D.
Roosevelt however moved toward strong support
of the Allies in wars against Germany and Japan.
(Arsenal of Democracy)

16. Post World War II
• After the war, the U.S. became the dominant non-
colonial economic power with broad influence in much
of the world, with the Marshall Plan (economic aid to
European countries to rebuild after World War II and
the Truman Doctrine (the US should give support to
countries or peoples threatened by Soviet forces or
Communist insurrection.)
• Immediately thereafter the world becomes bipolar
during the Cold War, one led by the U.S. and the
second by the USSR with third camp of the Non-
Aligned Movement. This period of ideological and
power struggle between the two superpowers lasted
until almost the end of the 20th century.

17. • 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.

18. • The US adopts policy of containment to limit
Soviet expansion. Series of proxy wars
ultimately resulted in the dissolution of Soviet
Union in 1991.
• The Republicans are characterized by a
hawkish and intense American nationalism,
and strong opposition to Communism, and
strong support for Israel.

19. End of WWII…beginning of Cold War
• Main goal of US after WWII
– Expand democracy to keep Communism from
spreading!
• 1947
– POTUS Truman signs the Truman Doctrine
• Declares U.S. foreign policy = containment of
Communism
1. How? Keep democracies for becoming
Communist
2. So, America has to be the leader in this war.

20. America vs. Communism
• 1950
– Korean War breaks out
• North Korea = Communism
• South Korea = Capitalist
– Capitalists win
• 1959
– Fidel Castro takes over Cuba
• Makes it Communist
• 1961-1973
– Vietnam War
• North Vietnam = Communism
• South Vietnam = Capitalism
– Communists win

21. Cuban Missile Crises…how the world
almost got blown up!
• 1963 (6 days of Terror)
– Russia started moving nuclear weapons to
Cuba.
• Castro liked annoying the US.
– POTUS JFK
• Told Russia to take weapons out of Cuba or else we
would blow it off the face of the Earth!

22. Cold War Thaws Out…1963-1989
• 1963
– Russia finally takes weapons out of Cuba.
• This scary moment leads to détente (the easing of
hostility or strained relations)
– Stop using nuclear weapons to promote foreign policy.
• The USSR and USA slow down nuclear weapon making.
• 1989
– The USSR falls apart
– Communism ends in USSR.

23. Persian Gulf War
1990-1991
• Iraq leader Saddam Hussein orders
attacks Kuwait
–Wants to take control of their oil fields
• POTUS Bush I
–Sends in US Army to free Kuwait
–Why?
–US wanted control of oil

24. Persian Gulf War ends….or does it?
• 1991
–Hussein orders retreat out of Kuwait.
–US troops come home.
–Hussein stays in power….
•Does this make sense?

25. 9/11 Attacks lead to us going back to
fight terrorists….right?
• Al-Qaeda is from where?
–From Afghanistan
• POTUS Bush II
–Sends US military to Iraq?
–Saddam Hussein is kicked out
•Start a new democratic government.
•What about the terrorists?

26. After the Cold War
• The advent of 21st century marks the arrival of
new players (China, India, Russia, and the newly
consolidated European Union) on the
international stage. U.S. influence remains strong
but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of
economic output compared to rising nations.
• Substantial problems remain, such as climate
change, nuclear proliferation, and the specter
of nuclear terrorism. Powers have similar
interests in stability and terrorism prevention and
trade. Common grounds can bring decades of
peaceful growth and prosperity.

27. Challenges of the New Administration
• The new US President is known to be a mercurial,
strong-willed leader with no real experience on
the world stage. He prefers personal diplomacy
with a taste for glitz.
• To stay in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the
Paris climate accord, taking a hard line on Russia,
advocating negotiations and dialogue to defuse
the mounting crisis with North Korea, advocating
for continued U.S. adherence to the Iran nuclear
deal, reassuring allies, from South Korea and
Japan to NATO partners that America still has
their back and taking a neutral position in the
dispute between Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

28. US-China Relations
• US Vice President Pence in around mid
October 2018 declared a new Cold War
against China.
• America has now decisively stepped into the
Thucydides Trap — the Ancient Greek
historian’s thesis that a confrontation
between an established and a rising power is
almost always inevitable.

29. US Accusations
• Pence accused China of multiple wrongs:
unfair trade, technology theft, targeted tariffs,
interference in the US electoral process, a
military build up, militarisation of the South
China Sea islands (to keep the US out), ‘debt
diplomacy’ (CPEC), anti-US propaganda and
internal oppression. Pence declared that the
US “will not stand down” in opposing these
alleged Chinese policies.

30. Alarming US Indictment
• Pence’s broad anti-China indictment reflects
the American ‘establishment’s’ considered
policy. The speech was preceded by national
strategy papers describing China and Russia as
America’s adversaries, trade tariffs and
investment restrictions, sanctions on Chinese
military entities, renewed weapons sales to
Taiwan and expanding US Freedom of
Navigation operations in the South China Sea.

31. • Chinese anger was visible during US State
Secretary Pompeo’s Korea-related visit to
Beijing a few days ago in October 2018, when
Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly
demanded that the US stop its confrontational
‘behaviour’. The confrontation is likely to
escalate in words and deeds. It will become
increasingly difficult for either side to ‘stand
down’.

32. US measures will not benefit US
• The trade tariffs Trump has imposed are
unlikely to return many manufacturing jobs to
America since most Chinese goods will
continue to be cheaper than their alternatives.
US consumers will only pay higher prices. The
China-located supply chains of many US
corporations will be disrupted, while China’s
supply chains are mostly outside of the US.
Nor will technology restraints significantly
dent China’s 2025 technology programme,
since it has already achieved considerable
technological autonomy.

33. Sino-US economic showdown to harm
world economy
• The Sino-US economic confrontation will have
extensive consequences for the global
economy. The IMF estimates that the US and
China may lose one per cent and two per cent
of growth respectively, while global growth
would be trimmed by around half a
percentage point. There are fears of another
global recession as other economies become
infected by the Sino-US trade war.

34. US losing Asia Pacific Front Yard of
China
• The prospects of the US “containing” China in the
Indo-Pacific are also marginal. This is China’s front
yard. The US allies and friends in East Asia —
even Japan, Australia and South Korea — are
economically intertwined with China and will be
reluctant to confront it. US Freedom of
Navigation operations could lead to accidental
conflict, as almost happened recently. Short of
war, the US cannot wrest the South China Sea
islands from China. A reckless US decision to
discard the One-China policy could unleash a
Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

35. US ‘debt trap’ argument
• Despite US objections, and Western propaganda,
China’s Belt and Road Initiative is unlikely to be
derailed. Developing countries will not forego the
opportunity to build infrastructure with Chinese
financing. The ‘debt trap’ argument is misleading.
Infrastructure investment rarely offers
commercial returns. But no country can
industrialise without adequate infrastructure.
• The US, with its parsimonious outlays on
development cooperation, cannot offer an
alternative to China’s BRI.

36. US may be in the ‘Freezing’ trap
• The new Cold War will change the structures of
global interaction and governance.
• Cooperation among the major powers on global
issues (non-proliferation, climate change,
terrorism) and in regions of tension (North Korea,
Afghanistan, the Middle East) may be frozen.
• China, Russia and the countries in the Eurasian
‘heartland’ will draw closer together. Alternative
trade, finance and development organisations
will emerge to circumvent US domination of
existing institutions.

37. Shriveling choices for India
• The strategic dynamics of South Asia could
also be transformed. Although India is
attracted to America’s overtures for an anti-
China alliance, it also wishes to avoid the
‘cost’ of confrontation (Doklam) and to secure
the benefits of trade and investment with
China (the ‘Wuhan spirit’) as well as to
maintain its arms supply relationship with
Russia. The escalating Sino-US confrontation
will compress the time and space for India to
get off the fence and make a strategic choice
between America and Russia-China.

38. Pakistan and US – Strategic Divergence
• Unlike India, Pakistan’s choice is clear. Its strategic
partnership with China is critical for its national
security and socioeconomic development. This
choice automatically implies a strategic
divergence with the US. The only question is
whether Pakistan can maintain a modicum of
cooperation with the US despite the strategic
divergence. Pakistan has some room for
manoeuvre so long as the US remains in
Afghanistan, with or without a political
settlement there.

39. India de-hyphenating US -China
• If India chooses to remain aloof from an
alliance with US, and moves closer to China
and Russia, it could radically alter the calculus
of the political and economic relationships in
the entire region. A Sino-Indian
rapprochement would increase the prospects
of Pakistan-India normalisation and a
compromise ‘solution’ for Kashmir. The visions
of regional ‘connectivity’ would become
reality. However, this scenario is highly
unlikely until after the 2019 Indian elections.

40. US without X may be beneficial for US
• Although the new Cold War is wider and more
complex than the old one, there is hope that it
may not be as prolonged. US public opinion
will soon see that confrontation with China
(and Russia) is costly and counterproductive. A
post-Trump Democratic administration may
well decide to opt for the ‘win-win’
relationship proposed by Chinese President Xi
Jinping.