GOVT.

GIRLS D/C SARAI SALEH HARIPUR

SUBMIITED BY….SHAMAILA ASIF

DEPARTMENT….POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMESTER….VII
POL.SC-21
SUBJECT….FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS
TOPIC….FOREIGN POLICY OF AMERICA
SUBMITTED TO….MAM MUSARRAT SHAHEEN
SUBMISSION DATE….FEBRUARY 1, 2021

1
CONTENTS:
FOREIGN POLICY OF AMERICA:
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………….
2. HISTORICAL VIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY………………………………………
2.1. FOREIGN POLICY UNDER GEORGE WASHINGTON (1789-97)…………….
2.2. FOREIGN POLICY UNDER JOHN ADAMS (1797-1801)………………………
2.3. FOREIGN POLICY UNDER THOMAS JEFFERSON (1801-1809)……………..
2.4. FOREIGN POLICY UNDER JAMES MADISON (1809-1817)………………….
2.5. FOREIGN POLICY UNDER JAMES MONROE (1817-1825)…………………..
2.6. MONROE DOCTRINE……………………………………………………………
2.7. THE ROOSEVELT COROLLAY AND 20TH CENTURY……………………….
2.8. MARCH TO WORLD WAR I…………………………………………………….
2.9. AMERICA AND ISOLATIONISM……………………………………………….
2.10. WORLD WAR II…………………………………………………………………..
2.11. INTERVENTIONISM …………………………………………………………….
2.12. COLD WAR………………………………………………………………………..
2.13. TRUMAN DOCTRINE…………………………………………………………….
2.14. NIXON DOCTRINE ………………………………………………………………
2.15. CARTER DOCTRINE……………………………………………………………..
2.16. REAGAN DOCTRINE…………………………………………………………….
2.17. ENDING THE COLD WAR……………………………………………………….
2.18. POST COLD WAR FOREIGN POLICY…………………………………………..
2.19. NEW WORLD ORDER…………………………………………………………….
2.20. MULTIPOLAR WORLD…………………………………………………………..
2.21. U.S. AND 9/11……………………………………………………………………...
2.22. WAR ON TERRORISM……………………………………………………………
2.23. BUSH DOCTRINE…………………………………………………………………
2.24. OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND OBAMA DOCTRINE…………………….
2.25. PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CHANGES TO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY…………...
3. AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TRADITIONS…………………………………………
4. GOALS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY……………………………………………………...
5. TOOLS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY………………………………………………………
6. WHO MAKES U.S. FOREIGN POLICY………………………………………………….
7. TEN PRINCIPLES OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY………………………………………….
8. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..
9. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………..

2
“I'm not one of those critics that believes U.S. foreign policy is confused, or stupid,
or misinformed, or well-intentioned but it goes awry. I think it's a brilliant policy
filled with many brilliant, terrible, horrible victories.”
-Michael Parenti-
INTRODUCTION:
Foreign policy is the basis on which all international relations are conducted. Every country in the
first instance, decided what its national interest is and what its wishes to achieve through the
conduct of its relations with other countries. In other words every country analyses its national
interest and then proceeds to formulate certain principles which constitute its foreign policy.
According to CC Rodee, foreign policy involves the formulation and implementations of a group
of principles which shape the behavior pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to
protect or further its vital interest. Foreign policy has been defined by several scholars. But the
emphasis remains on regulations of behavior of other states to suit one’s own interest. In order to
do that, a country often tries to change the behavior of other states but if it becomes absolutely
essential to modify its own behavior it may do so. But the national interest remain supreme.
During the last two hundred years, America has tried to regulate the behavior of numerous
countries, particularly in the western Hemisphere and Far East. Most foreign policymakers of
America tried to follow the policy of isolation until the United States suddenly found herself in the
position of superpower after the World War II. The America had tried to formulate its foreign
policy on the assumption of liberty and freedom. But, even they have intervened in the
international affairs of another country, they argued that they were doing so to serve the principles
of freedom and democracy.1

HISTORICAL VIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:

FOREIGN POLICY UNDER GEORGE WASHINGTON (1789–1797):
During President George Washington’s two terms as president, the United States adopted a policy
of isolationism, because the country was too weak to become embroiled in the affairs of foreign
countries. Washington who is depicted in this 1795 oil painting by American artist Rembrandt
Peale, focused on building up the U.S. Navy and negotiating treaties with foreign nations during
his presidency. In 1794, Chief Justice John Jay negotiated a treaty with Great Britain in which the
British agreed to withdraw from the Northwest Territory. Cease plundering U.S. trade vessels, and
grant the United States trade rights in Great Britain and the British East Indies. In return, the United
States agreed to pay off debts to British merchants that were incurred prior to the American
Revolution.

FOREIGN POLICY UNDER JOHN ADAMS (1797-1801):

In 1796, the federalist John Adams (George Washington’s Vice President) succeeded Washington
as president. Early in Adams presidency, the French seized nearly 300 American ships bound for
British ports. While leaders of Federalist Party called for war, Adams attempted a diplomatic
3
solution and sent delegates to France. Like Washington, Adams realized the young republic was
in no way prepared for war. Adams favored the building up of the navy and collateral work to
construct coastal defenses at such strategic location as the entrances to harbors.2

FOREIGN POLICY UNDER THOMAS JEFFERSON (1801-1809):

Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826) was an American statesman, one of the Founding Fathers of the
United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. He later served as the
third President of the United States.3
Thomas Jefferson was a key architect of early American foreign policy. He had a clear vision of
the place of the new republic in the world, which he articulated in a number of writings and state
papers. The key elements to his strategic vision were geographic expansion and free trade.
Throughout his long public career Jefferson sought to realize these ends, particularly during his
time as US minister to France, secretary of state, vice president, and president. He believed that
the United States should expand westward and that its citizens should be free to trade globally. He
sought to maintain the right of the United States to trade freely during the wars arising from the
French Revolution and its aftermath. This led to his greatest achievement, the Louisiana Purchase,
but also to conflicts with the Barbary States and, ultimately, Great Britain. He believed that the
United States should usher in a new world of republican diplomacy and that it would be in the
vanguard of the global republican movement. In the literature on US foreign policy, historians
have tended to identify two main schools of practice dividing practitioners into idealists and
realists. Jefferson is often regarded as the founder of the idealist tradition. This somewhat misreads
him. While he pursued clear idealistic ends—a world dominated by republics freely trading with
each other—he did so using a variety of methods including diplomacy, war, and economic
coercion.4
In short
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”
― Thomas Jefferson

FOREIGN POLICY UNDER JAMES MADISON (1809-1817):

When Madison came into the presidency, he did so with great allegiance to virtually all
Jeffersonian ideals. This is true with regard to both domestic politics and foreign policy. During
his first year as presidency, he did so with great allegiance to virtually all Jeffersonian ideals. This
was true with regard to both domestic politics and foreign policy.
During his first year presidency, Madison and Congress continued recent tradition, prohibiting
trade with both Great Britain and France. Then in May 1810, congress reversed itself: authorizing
the president to pursue trade with both countries, provided each accepted America’s view of

4
neutral rights, or trade with only one, if that one accepted America’s view of neutral rights. Of the
two warring parties, only France endeavored to comply. Thus, late in 1810, President Madison
declared a state of “non-intercourse” with Great Britain. Later, United States made treaties with
other powers particularly with Canada and Great Britain under the presidency of Madison.5

FOREIGN POLICY UNDER JAMES MONROE (1817-1825):

In 1817 James Monroe elected to the first of two terms as president. In March, John Quincy Adams
is appointed secretary of state, serving throughout Monroe’s presidency, until 3 March 1825. The
Neutrality Act of 1818 codifies existing neutrality laws and favor independence movement in Latin
America. The Convention of 1818 with Great Britain resolves issues on the Northeast fisheries,
deported slaves, the Northwest boundaries, and transatlantic commerce. The Adams-Onis
(Transcontinental) Treaty is signed on 22 February 1819 and resolve boundary disputes that had
embroiled Spain and America in quarrels since 1803. On 2 December 1823, President Monroe
enunciates the Monroe Doctrine in his State of Union message.6

MONROE DOCTRINE:
Four principles formed the Monroe Doctrine. The Americas were no longer to be considered object
for future colonization or control by any European power. The political systems of the European
powers were alien to the United States and any attempt to export it to the America would be
considered dangerous to American interest. The United States would not interfere with the existing
colonies or dependencies of European powers. Finally, the Monroe Doctrine reaffirmed that the
United States would not take part in the wars of the European powers.7
Although the Monroe Doctrine declared unilateral U.S. protection over the entire Western
Hemisphere, the United States did not have the military or economic muscle to support such an
ambitious policy at that time. Not surprisingly the European powers ignored the Doctrine when it
suited them. However, by the end of the American Civil War (1861–1865), the United States had
considerable military and economic resources at its disposal. In the first major application of the
Monroe Doctrine, U.S. forces massed in 1867 on the Rio Grande River to support U.S. demands
that France abandon its puppet regime in Mexico, headed by the Hapsburg prince, Maximilian.
France eventually complied, marking a significant victory for U.S. coercive diplomacy.
The Maximilian affair demonstrated that the fortunes of the Monroe Doctrine were closely linked
to the expansion of U.S. power. Indeed, as American industrial development and trading and
investment ties with Latin America grew in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the United
States became more willing not only to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, but also to add to its self-
assumed rights and responsibilities. Latin America’s subservience to the United States was amply
demonstrated in 1904, when President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) developed the Roosevelt
Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.8

5
THE ROOSEVELT COROLLAY AND THE TWENTIETH CENTURY:
In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
Roosevelt’s addition stated that the United States had the right to intervene in the affairs of Latin
American nation when said nation committed some kind of wrong doing.
Under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Monroe Doctrine was redefined and liberalized,
at least somewhat. FDR enunciated a more moderate stance toward relations with South America,
termed the Good Neighbor Policy, and placed a focus on hemispheric solidarity against external
threats. But after FDR's death in 1945, American adventuring in the internal affairs of states across
South America continued and expanded, even though the United States has at the same time
supported the work of the Organization of American States (OAS), founded in 1948, to advance
common interests and strengthen cooperation among states in South America. At the core of the
OAS mission is a devotion to the ideal of democracy. According to the OAS's charter: "The peoples
of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote
and defend it."9

MARCH TO WORLD WAR I:

After Wilson took office, Europe went to war. Wilson’s goal was to keep the United States out of
that war if possible. On August 4, 1914, he proclaimed the United States neutral in the European
conflict. On May 7, 1915 the British passenger ship Lusitania was sunk by a German torpedo,
resulting in the deaths of more than a thousand passenger and crew, including 124 Americans. In
response Wilson had the secretary of the state deliver a note to the German ambassador in which
the United States reiterated its neutrality but also gave warning that Germany should “not expect
the Government of the United States to omit any word or any act necessary to the performance of
its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of the United States and its citizens and of safeguarding
their free exercise and enjoyment.10
During the first to years of the war (1914-1916), U.S. trade with Britain and its allies went from
$800 million to $3 billion. Despite Wilson’s intentions, he could not keep the United States out of
the European war. The resumption of German unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917
and attacks on U.S.-flagged merchant ships made U.S. involvement inevitable. On April 2, 1917,
Wilson went before a joint session of Congress and asked for declaration of war against Germany,
which was granted. Whatever the actual reasons the United States had for going to war in Europe,
Wilson put the decision into idealistic and moralistic terms. Further, his foreign policy in general
was tied to a desire to actively extend democracy, thereby changing the U.S. policy posture from
one that was unilateralist to one of active engagement internationally.11

After declaring war against Germany the United States did not join the Allies in an official
capacity, it fought alongside the British and French against Germany and the other Central Powers,
such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. As the war continued and news of wanton

6
devastation made headlines, U.S. public support for the war began to wane. While Europe suffered
more casualties than the United States, (tens of millions of Europeans lost their lives, compared to
over 400,000 Americans), Americans reeled from the emotional and financial costs of war and
began to feel as though joining the war effort was a mistake. In 1918, Wilson articulated fourteen
points to help end the war and establish a basis for cooperation, which included freedom of the
seas, open economic trade, the evacuation of occupied territories, the liberation of non-Turkish
peoples in the Ottoman Empire, and a general collection of nation states to offer members
territorial integrity and political independence—setting the stage for what would later become the
League of Nations.12

What ensued was a radical shift in U.S. foreign policy, which promoted a stance of isolationism
that would last until World War II. Warren Harding won the 1920 presidential election on the
promise of staying out of global affairs, and by arguing that the United States needed normalcy
and a focus on internal problems. Thus, U.S. foreign policy during the 1920s was characterized by
the enactment of isolationist policies; for instance, the U.S. opted not to join the burgeoning League
of Nations, even though it had been the nation to first propose such international cooperation.
Instead, the United States focused on building the domestic economy by supporting business
growth, encouraging industrial expansion, imposing tariffs on imported products and limiting
immigration.13

AMERICA AND ISOLATIONISM:

First on November 19, 1919 and again on March 20, 1920, the United State Senate rejected the
treaties negotiated at Paris and with them the League of Nations. Some Senators thought the
Germany had been treated too harshly; others did not want the United States to get “tangled up in
European affairs” and worse another European war. Many American, it seemed, believed that
membership in the League would turn the U.S.A.’s involvement in Europe into permanent
responsibility. It was time for America to return to “normalcy” – for America to pursue America’s
interests. President Harding (1920-23) spoke of a “return to normalcy”; President Coolidge (1923-
29) uttered the claim: “The business of America is business”. What this meant; was the policy of
isolationism.14

But not all of the American policy after 1920 was isolationist. For example, Government and
private aid was given to relieve suffering in Europe and Middle East. The American Relief Fund
provided food in Russia in 1922 when the country was faced with the massive food shortages.
With its Near East Relief, another significant effort was organized to relieve massive suffering of
refugees produced as a result of the Greek-Turkish war (1920-22). Some have estimated that the
American may have saved eleven million lives.15

7
Between 1922 and 1929, the United States floated Germany with loans worth billions of dollars
and became the “banker to the World”. In other words, United States focused on economic means
to create peace and stability, which would allow furthering U.S. commercial expansionism.
Besides the strong economic focus and within the given political limitations, the Harding and
Coolidge administration fought for world peace.

THE HEIGHT OF ISOLATIONISM:

Party politics influenced the political course of the newly elected president. When Franklin D.
Roosevelt presented himself as a candidate of Democratic National Convention in June 1932, the
great Depression was a dominating theme. According to Duroselle, FDR needed the support of
party’s right wing under William Randolph Hearst. Hearst followed a strict isolationist position,
strongly opposed a “policy of meddling in European conflicts and complications”, and even asked
for strict repudiation of the League of Nations in the name of “America first”. To secure Hearst’s
support, FDR announced in a speech of New York State Grange on February 2, 1932, that
“American participation in the League would not serve the highest purpose of the prevention of
war. The highest ideals of the demand that with strict adherence to principles of Washington, 16
we maintain our international freedom.” This major concession to the right wing isolationists
gained FDR the necessary support to become a candidate for Democratic Party. At the start of
FDR’s presidency, party politics and the severe economic crisis had narrowed FDR’s political
focus to domestic problem and encouraged him to promote a neutral position in foreign political
affairs. In other words, FDR focused on domestic issues and pushed international relations to the
side.17
In order to strong America internally and economically, the isolation policy (noninterference in
international conflicts) was strictly followed by America, till 1940s. During that period of time
almost, three Neutrality Act was approved by American Congress.

WORLD WAR II:

Although isolationists kept the U.S. out of WWII for 2 years, the interventionists eventually had
their way and the U.S. declared war in 1941. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland,
and Britain and France subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War
II. In an address to the American people two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that
he would do all he could to keep them out of war. However, he also said: “When peace has been
broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
The war in Europe split the American people into two distinct groups: non-interventionists and
interventionists. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion.
By the summer of 1940, France had fallen to the Germans, and Britain was the only democratic
stronghold between Germany and the United States. Interventionists were afraid of a world after
this war, a world where they would have to coexist with the fascist power of Europe. In a 1940

8
speech, Roosevelt argued, “Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that
we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the
philosophy of force.” 18
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The following
day, the United States declared war on Japan. Domestic support for non-interventionism
disappeared. Clandestine support of Britain was replaced by active alliance. Subsequent operations
by the U.S. prompted Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, which was
reciprocated by the U.S. the same day. During the final stages of World War II in 1945, the United
States conducted atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. These two
events represent the only use of nuclear weapons in war to date.

INTERVENTIONISM:
After WWII, the US’s foreign policy was characterized by interventionism, which meant the US
was directly involved in other states’ affairs. After WWII, the United States took a policy of
interventionism in order to contain communist influence abroad. Such forms of interventionism
included giving aid to European nations to rebuild, having an active role in the UN, NATO, and
police actions around the world, and involving the CIA in several coup take overs in Latin America
and the Middle East. The US was not merely non-isolationist (i.e. the US was not merely
abandoning policies of isolationism), but actively intervening and leading world affairs. 19

ISOLATIONISM VERSUS INTERVENTIONISM CHART:

INTROVERT EXTROVERT
1. 1776-98 1. 1798-1824
2. 1824-44 2. 1844-71
3. 1871-91 3. 1891-1918
4. 1918-40 4. 1940-67
5. 1967-87 5. 1987-2014
20

COLD WAR:
There is no satisfactory date to mark the beginning of cold war, but the issue that gave it life and
shaped its early course was East Europe. The Soviet Union occupied East Europe. This crucial
result of World War II destroyed the Grand Alliance and gave birth to Cold War. America was
unwilling to accept Russian domination of East Europe. Nearly every important American leader
acknowledged that East Europe could no longer maintain an anti-Soviet position, but at the same

9
time they all wished to promote democracy, freedom of religion and free enterprise. As Secretary
of State James Byrnes put it, “Our objective is a government [in Poland] both friendly to the Soviet
union and representative of all the democratic elements of the country”.21
Truman’s Containment policy was the first major policy during the Cold War and used numerous
strategies to prevent the spread of communism abroad. Containment was a United States policy
using numerous strategies to prevent the spread of communism abroad. A component of the Cold
War, this policy was a response to a series of moves by the Soviet Union to enlarge its communist
sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, China, Korea, and Vietnam. It represented a middle-ground
position between détente and rollback. The basis of the doctrine was articulated in a 1946 cable by
United States diplomat, George F. Kennan. As a description of United States foreign policy, the
word originated in a report Kennan submitted to the U.S. defense secretary in 1947—a report that
was later used in a magazine article.22

Truman Doctrine:
On March 12, 1947 the American President Truman23 in his address to a joint session of the
Congress said, “The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist
activities of several thousand armed men, led by communist, who defy the government’s
authority …. Greece must have assistance, if it to become a self-supporting and self-respecting
democracy. He pledged American should support of free people, who were resisting, attempted
subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”

This message prompted by the need to give military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey,
marked a switch to a positive anti-communism policy on the part of West in general and the
United States in particular. It proved a turning point in American foreign policy, which
declared that foreign aggression, would be direct and indirect threat to peace and security of
the United States and it would not remain isolated from European or world politics. It also
declared that U.S.A. will stop further expansion of Soviet Union at all costs, and will fill in the
vacuum created by the withdrawal of the Britain from the world politics.

Critics maintained that by the Truman Doctrine U.S.A. by passed the United Nations, by
offering direct assistance to Greece and Turkey, which should come through the United
Nations. Moreover, Truman did not intend to defend democracy and freedom in Greece and
Turkey, but to reach oil deposit in the Middle East.24

The word containment is associated most strongly with the policies of United States President
Harry Truman (1945–53), including the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), a mutual defense pact. Although President Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) toyed with the
rival doctrine of rollback, he refused to intervene in the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. President
Lyndon Johnson (1963–69) cited containment as a justification for his policies in Vietnam.
President Richard Nixon (1969–74), working with his top advisor Henry Kissinger, rejected
containment in favor of friendly relations with the Soviet Union and China; this détente, or
relaxation of tensions, involved expanded trade and cultural contacts.25

10
President Jimmy Carter (1976–81) emphasized human rights rather than anti-communism, but
dropped détente and returned to containment when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979.
President Ronald Reagan (1981–89), denouncing the Soviet state as an “evil empire”, escalated
the Cold War and promoted rollback in Nicaragua and Afghanistan. Central programs begun under
containment, including NATO and nuclear deterrence, remained in effect even after the end of the
war. The word containment is associated most strongly with the policies of United States President
Harry Truman (1945–53), including the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), a mutual defense pact. Although President Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) toyed with the
rival doctrine of rollback, he refused to intervene in the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. President
Lyndon Johnson (1963–69) cited containment as a justification for his policies in Vietnam.
President Richard Nixon (1969–74), working with his top advisor Henry Kissinger, rejected
containment in favor of friendly relations with the Soviet Union and China; this détente, or
relaxation of tensions, involved expanded trade and cultural contacts.26

NIXON DOCTRINE:
Conventional wisdom holds that President Richard M. Nixon came into office in January 1969
with a new set of foreign policy principles that were later dubbed the “Nixon Doctrine”. When
President Richard Nixon met with reporters in Guam on July 25, 1969 to discuss the U.S. role in
Asia, he did not intend his comments to be understood as constituting a new policy doctrine. After
some reporters began referring to key elements of his remarks as the “Nixon Doctrine”.
Many who have heard of the doctrine – including most specialist in the field of foreign relations
– understand that its key principle was that the United States would call on its allies and friends to
supply their on manpower to “defend” themselves against “Communist aggression”, while
America provided on advice, aid and arms. Nixon implemented the new doctrine through
“Vietnamizatin”, by which means sought to withdraw American armed from Indochina while
simultaneously defending South Vietnam, winning the war, achieving peace, and preserving
American honor.27

CARTER DOCTRINE:
Carter Doctrine, foreign policy initiative of the United States, introduced by U.S. President Jimmy
Carter in his 1980 State of the Union address, that returned the country to its traditional strategy
of containment of the Soviet Union.

In his speech, Carter declared that the United States would employ military force against any
country that attempted to gain control of the Persian Gulf region. That announcement marked a
dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy, which had been focused since the beginning of Carter’s
presidency on promoting international human rights and on pursuing détente with the Soviet

11
Union. Carter’s policy of détente had culminated in 1979 in the signing of the Strategic Arms
Limitation Talks (SALT) II nuclear arms treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States. 28

After his State of the Union address, Carter outlined specific measures that he would take to
implement his new doctrine. They included the withdrawal of the United States from the 1980
Summer Olympic Games in Moscow, the suspension of grain sales to the Soviet Union, and the
withdrawal of the SALT II treaty from Senate consideration. He also recommended a 6 percent
increase in the defense budget and created a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force that could be
quickly dispatched to any combat zone in the world. Finally, he issued a presidential directive
ordering the development of smaller nuclear weapons that could be used to strike highly specific
targets. With that directive, which envisioned the possibility of a “limited” nuclear war, Carter
abandoned the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which had previously (from the 1960s)
governed the nuclear strategy of both the United States and the Soviet Union.29

REAGAN DOCTRINE:
In his State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan defines some of the key concepts of
his foreign policy, establishing what comes to be known as the “Reagan Doctrine.” The doctrine
served as the foundation for the Reagan administration’s support of “freedom fighters” around the
globe. Reagan began his foreign policy comments with the dramatic pronouncement that,
“Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a chosen few; it is the universal right of all God’s children.”
America’s “mission” was to “nourish and defend freedom and democracy.” More specifically,
Reagan declared that, “We must stand by our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with
those who are risking their lives—on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy
Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.” He concluded,
“Support for freedom fighters is self-defense.30
With these words, the Reagan administration laid the foundation for its program of military
assistance to “freedom fighters.” In action, this policy translated into covertly supporting the
Contras in their attacks on the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua; the Afghan rebels in
their fight against the Soviet occupiers; and anticommunist Angolan forces embroiled in that
nation’s civil war. President Reagan continued to defend his actions throughout his two terms in
office. During his farewell address in 1989, he claimed success in weakening the Sandinista
government, forcing the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan, and bringing an end to the conflict
in Angola. Domestic critics, however, decried his actions, claiming that the support of so-called
“freedom fighters” resulted only in prolonging and escalating bloody conflicts and in U.S. support
of repressive and undemocratic elements in each of the respective nations.31

12
ENDING THE COLD WAR:
The discussion of the role of American foreign policy in the ending of the cold war has focused on
the policies of the Reagan administration and, in particular, the claims by some scholars and former
members of the Reagan administration that “Reagan won the cold war”. The claim, then is that
Reagan’s arms build-up and policy of confronting the USSR and its allies in the third-world
through supporting anti-communist guerrilla movements forced the USSR into making strategic
and political concessions that effectively ended the cold war between 1987 and 1989. So, did
Reagan’s policies of confrontation force Soviet concessions, effectively ending the cold war? 32
We do not know what might have happened had the second term Reagan administration continued
with the hard line policies of the first term, but the reduction of the international tensions certainly
made it easier for Gorbachev to usher in the changes that made in Soviet foreign and domestic
policies that broke the geopolitical and ideological framework that had dominated US-Soviet
relations since 1945. Further, it was only in this altered geopolitical context that the Soviet
leadership could tolerate the developments in east-central Europe in 1989, which saw the collapse
of communist power within these states and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.33
The Cold War ended very abruptly. Many in the intellectual community had staked out positions
emphasizing the importance of the indefinite gradualism of détente and accommodation between
the two sides, while experts on the Soviet Union and international relations generally did not
foresee the fundamental weakness and ultimate collapse of the Soviet system. In fairness to the
experts, very few others as well accurately predicted how the future would unfold. 34

POST COLD WAR FOREIGN POLICY:

The post-Cold War era saw optimism, and the balance of power shifted solely to the United States.
With the breakup of the Soviet Union into separate nations, and the re-emergence of the nation of
Russia, the world of pro-U.S. and pro-Soviet alliances broke down. Different challenges presented
themselves, such as climate change and the threat of nuclear terrorism. Regional powerbrokers in
Iraq and Saddam Hussein challenged the peace with a surprise attack on the small nation of Kuwait
in 1991. The aftermath of the Cold War continues to influence world affairs. After the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, the post–Cold War world was widely considered as unipolar, with the United
States the sole remaining superpower.
President George H.W. Bush organized a coalition of allied and Middle Eastern powers that
successfully pushed back the invading forces, but stopped short of invading Iraq and capturing
Hussein. As a result, the dictator was free to cause mischief for another twelve years. After the
Gulf War, many scholars like Zbigniew Brzezinski claimed that the lack of a new strategic vision
for U.S. foreign policy resulted in many missed opportunities for its foreign policy. The United
States mostly scaled back its foreign policy budget as well as its cold war defense budget during
the 1990s, which amounted to 6.5% of GDP while focusing on domestic economic prosperity
under President Clinton, who succeeded in achieving a budget surplus for 1999 and 2000.35

13
NEW WORLD ORDER:
U.S President George W. Bush told the U.S. audience on April 13, 1991, that “A new world order
really describes, in regards to the U.S., new international responsibilities imposed by our success.
It refers to new ways of working with other nations to deter aggression and achieve stability,
prosperity and above all, peace.”
New World Order is primarily aimed at future formulation of U.S. policies with the objective of
future shape of the world, as U.S. needed. Thus it is the sum and substance of structural features
of the post-cold war era policies with special reference to U.S. approach. Finally, it can be said
that New World Order is the territorial re-adjustment of the world states according to the wishes,
desire and interest of the USA, so that she may obtain her unipolar status in the political system of
the world.36

MULTIPOLAR WORLD:
The big change during these years was a transition from bipolar world to multipolar world. While
the USA remains a strong power economically and militarily, rising nations such as China, India,
Brazil, and Russia as well as a United Europe have challenged its dominance. Foreign policy
analysts such as Nina Harchigian suggest that the six emerging big powers share common
concerns: economic growth, free trade, prevention of terrorism, and efforts to stymie nuclear
proliferation. And if they can avoid war, the coming decades can be peaceful and productive
provided there are no dangerous rivalries.37

US AND 9/11:
Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, four planes on domestic flight within the US have been hijacked by
terrorists. Two aircrafts crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre; New York City.
The third plane crashed into the Pentagon. The forth one fell into an open land in Pennsylvania,
killing of about 3,000 people. Al Qaeda (a jihadist organization) was the major responsible for the
9/11 terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda’s enmity towards USA goes back to decades ago when Ossama
Bin Laden, a son of wealthy Saudi Arabian family and the leader f this jihadist group, issued the
Holy Jihad declaration against the US. Al Qaeda started launching several attacks against US and
their strategic interest around the world (US embassies’ bombing in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in
1998). But the attacks of 9/11 were more brutal and dangerous because of their effects not only to
the US, but also in the world because of their repercussions.38

WAR ON TERRORISM:
The War on Terrorism refers to an international military campaign begun by the United States and
the United Kingdom with support from other countries after the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks. The campaign’s official purpose was to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant
14
organizations. The two main military operations associated with the War on Terror were Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

The phrase “War on Terror” was first used by U.S. President George W. Bush on 20 September
2001. The Bush administration and the Western media have since used the term to denote a global
military, political, legal, and ideological struggle targeting organizations designated as terrorist
and regimes accused of supporting them. It was typically used with a particular focus on Al-Qaeda
and other militant Islamists. Although the term is not officially used by the administration of U.S.
President Barack Obama, it is still commonly used by politicians, in the media, and officially by
some aspects of government, such as the United States’ Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. 39
After September 11, I thought that the arguments would be over, that finally everyone would see
what had to be done and go about doing it. The right war was to fight for the elimination of al
Qaeda, to stabilize nations threatened by radical Islamic terrorists, to offer a clear alternative to
counter the radical “theology” and ideology of the terrorists, and to reduce our own vulnerabilities
at home. It was an obvious agenda.40
There is no doubt that the decision to launch a global “war on terror” was a historic moment in US
foreign policy which was to have profound consequences both internationally and domestically.
To date, ‘war on terror’ has entailed two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, significant military
operations in Pakistan, Somalia, the Philippines, Georgia and elsewhere, a global intelligence and
rendition programme, the expansion of US military bases to new regions, increased military
assistance to new and old client regimes, an extensive international public diplomacy programme,
the articulation of new national security doctrines and priorities, and a major domestic
reorganization of and increased investment in the military, domestic security agencies, policing,
the legal system and numerous other agencies – among a great many other important
developments. The attacks on New York and Washington were potentially open to a number of
different interpretations, only one of which was an act of war necessitating a military response.
And it is certainly far from clear that the elimination or even significant reduction of the terrorist
threat has been achieved through the means of Bush administration and its allies have employed
in the ’war on terror’.41

BUSH DOCTRINE:
One week after the terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush spoke before Congress and
declared, “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make, either you are with us, or
you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as hostile regime”. President Bush’s statement that
both terrorist and people who aid them are enemies of the United States has been identified as the
Bush Doctrine.
Initially, the doctrine seemed to mark an important shift in American foreign policy. In his
inaugural address eight months earlier, Bush spoke more broadly about U.S. interests, stating, “We
will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet

15
aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength”. Bush’s 20 September speech delineated far
more sharply how the United States would view allies and opponents. Yet LaFeber shows that the
Bush Doctrine does follow a pattern in American Foreign Policy, one that brings together
American exceptionalism and American unilateralism.42

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND OBAMA DOCTRINE:

There are five main goals of Obama’s foreign policy.
i. Ending the war in Iraq.
ii. Finishing the fight against Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
iii. Securing nuclear weapons from rogue states.
iv. Achieving energy security.
v. Rebuilding the alliances

OBAMA DOCTRINE:
Obama doctrine stated that America’s role in the world has been aggressive and arrogant in
promoting democracy and multilateral institutions restrain U.S.A. power. He emphasized on
negotiation and collaboration, re-building broken relationships and building new alliances and
repairing the U.S. image. Obama told that his election as the first black president could change
geopolitical dynamics.43

Obama was pragmatic internationalist who recognized the limitations of U.S. power overseas.
Unlike his predecessor, Obama believed he could not rely principally on military firepower and
hegemony to achieve foreign policy objectives. Under Obama emphasis was placed on diplomacy
and development on an equal or stronger footing as defense. Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary
Clinton, testified that “defense, diplomacy and development…..must be mutually reinforcing”.44

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CHANGES TO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:

President Trump promised to “make America great again”. The U.S. was still the world’s
preeminent economic, military and political power. But many Americans were frustrated by the
realization that the country’s ability to affect change in other countries was limited. The American
unipolar moment was passing and emerging superpowers like China and Russia were surging
forward despite the United States’ extensive efforts to prevent them. Foreign policy failures in
Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Syria represented trillions of dollars of lost investment and
Americans lives with little to show for it. The country suffered from enormous accumulated debt,
trade deficit, eroding infrastructure, and a slow economy. The American public was frustrated and
looking for change.45

16
Trump embraces realism like no other recent U.S. President. In a Trump state, national interests
come before international effort or multilateral institutions. There will be no humanitarian
intervention because, as Trump claims, “the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be
weakness, confusion, and disarray”.46
Once he arrived in the White House on January 20, Trump quickly set out to reverse the world
order that U.S. had established the end of the cold war 25 years earlier. In his first two weeks as
President, he called NATO obsolete, withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and vowed to
renegotiate NAFTA. He ordered an immigration freeze for travelers from seven Muslim majority
nations. He proposed a $54 billion budget increase for the U.S. military and ordered more troops
into Syria while at the same time slashing foreign aid and U.S. diplomatic budgets by 30%. He
supported Israel’s effort to build settlement in Occupied Territories and effectively abandoned the
pledge for a two-nation solution. He pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, making the
country only one of the two nations in the world (with Syria) who did not recognize the immediate
urgency of global warming.47
President Trump foreign policy preference is motivated by U.S. unilateralism, rather than President
Obama’s efforts to support international institutions like the United Nations and International
Criminal Court. Trump like other conservative preferred to “go it alone” rather than be encumbered
by the international community. In his few months as President, the outlines of a new Trump
Doctrine have begun to emerge. Under the new president, the United State will be more inward
looking and less engaged overseas. The government, as was the case for previous Republican
administrations, will be inclined to unilateral action rather than deferring to multilateral
organizations. Security is the preeminent concern, not promotion of freedom, democracy, or
human rights. Economically, President Trump will seek protectionist measures to maintain United
States economic power and jobs at home, rather than permitting them to go to overseas. Trump’s
foreign policy may not be complete isolationism but it will certainly not include the broad range
of international efforts of his presidential predecessors to build global prosperity and ensure
stability in other nations.48

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TRADITIONS:

The United States has a variety of foreign policy traditions to draw on that overlap, reinforce, and
sometimes conflict with each other. The writer Walter Mead has used the device of identifying
these traditions with the names of past leaders as a helpful way to distinguish them. 49
The realists, who prudently pursue national interest and commerce, are named after Alexander
Hamilton. Populists, who emphasize self-reliance and frequent use of coercion, he names for
Andrew Jackson. He calls “Jeffersonians” those who advocate the pursuit of democracy by being
a shining beacon to others rather than (in John Quincy words) “going forth in search of dragons to
destroy.” Finally, “Wilsonians” are the idealists who follow Woodrow Wilson in seeking to make
the world safe for democracy.

17
Each approach has its virtues and faults. The Hamiltonians are prudent, but their realism lacks a
moral appeal to many at home and abroad. The Jacksonians are robust and tough, but lack staying
power and allies. Both the Hamiltonians and Jacksonians fail to accord adequate importance to
soft power. The Jeffersonians, On the Other hand, have plenty of soft power, but not enough hard
power, being a shining city on a hill is attractive but often is not sufficient to achieve all foreign
policy goals. The Wilsonians are also long on soft power, but sometimes their idealism leads them
to develop unrealistic ambitions. Their danger is that their foreign policy vehicles often have strong
accelerators but weak brakes and are thus prone to go off the road.50
Whereas Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians tend toward prudent and conservative foreign policies
that do not rock the boat, Wilsonians seek to transform the international situation. As we saw in
chapter 4 in the case of the Middle East, for years the United States followed a Hamiltonian policy
that sought stability through support of autocrats and commerce, but in the end did not prevent the
rise of radical Islamist ideology and terrorism. The Wilsonians urge a transformational rather than
a conservative or Status quo foreign policy. In their view, without democratization, the Middle
East (and other regions) will continue to be a breeding ground of rogue States and terrorist threats.
Much of the debate inside the Bush administration over the Iraq War was between traditional
Hamiltonian realists (such as Secretary of State Colin Powell) and a coalition Of Jacksonians (such
as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary Of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) plus neoconservative
Wilsonians (such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz). 51 Part of the confusion over
American objectives in going to war was that the administration used a variety of arguments that
appealed to different camps. The suggestion Of a connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11 was important
to Jacksonians, who sought revenge and deterrence; the argument that Saddam Hussein was
developing weapons of mass destruction in violation Of UN resolutions appealed to Hamiltonians,
and traditional Wilsonians in the Congress; and the need to remove a bloody dictator and transform
Middle Eastern politics was important to the new Wilsonians.

In recent years, the Wilsonians have divided into two camps. President Woodrow Wilson, of
course, was a Democrat, and traditional Wilsonians continue to stress both the promotion of
democracy and the role of international institutions. The neoconservatives, many of whom split
off from the Democratic Party after Vietnam, stress the importance of democracy, but drop
Wilson’s emphasis on international institutions. They do not want to be held back by institutional
constraints and see our legitimacy coming from our focus on democracy. In that sense, the
neoconservatives are advocates of soft power, but they focus too simply on substance and not
enough on process. By downgrading the legitimacy that comes from institutional processes where
others are consulted, they squander soft.52

GOALS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:-

U.S. government has following goals of foreign policy:
(1) The protection of the U.S. and its citizens,

18
(2) The maintenance of access to key resources and markets,
(3) The preservation of a balance of power in the world, and
(4) The protection of human rights and democracy.

The first goal is the protection of the United States and the lives of it citizens, both while they are
in the United States and when they travel abroad. Related to this security goal is the aim of
protecting the country’s allies, or countries with which the United States is friendly and mutually
supportive. In the international sphere, threats and dangers can take several forms, including
military threats from other nations or terrorist groups and economic threats from boycotts and high
tariffs on trade.

The second main goal of U.S. foreign policy is to ensure the nation maintains access to key
resources and markets across the world. Resources include natural resources, such as oil, and
economic resources, including the infusion of foreign capital investment for U.S. domestic
infrastructure projects like buildings, bridges, and weapons systems. Of course, access to the
international marketplace also means access to goods that American consumers might want, such
as Swiss chocolate and Australian wine. U.S. foreign policy also seeks to advance the interests of
U.S. business, to both sell domestic products in the international marketplace and support general
economic development around the globe (especially in developing countries).53

A third main goal is the preservation of a balance of power in the world. A balance of power means
no one nation or region is much more powerful militarily than are the countries of the rest of the
world. The achievement of a perfect balance of power is probably not possible, but general
stability, or predictability in the operation of governments, strong institutions, and the absence of
violence within and between nations may be. For much of U.S. history, leaders viewed world
stability through the lens of Europe. If the European continent was stable, so too was the world.
During the Cold War era that followed World War II, stability was achieved by the existence of
dual superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and by the real fear of the nuclear
annihilation of which both were capable. Until approximately 1989–1990, advanced industrial
democracies aligned themselves behind one of these two superpowers.

The fourth main goal of U.S. foreign policy is the protection of human rights and democracy. The
payoff of stability that comes from other U.S. foreign policy goals is peace and tranquility. While
certainly looking out for its own strategic interests in considering foreign policy strategy, the
United States nonetheless attempts to support international peace through many aspects of its
foreign policy, such as foreign aid, and through its support of and participation in international
organizations such as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and
the Organization of American States.54

19
TOOLS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:
The six primary tools of modern American foreign policy include diplomacy, the United Nations,
the international monetary structure, economic aid, collective security, and military deterrence.
DIPLOMACY is the peaceful representation of a government to other foreign governments and is
achieved primarily through the U.S. State Department.
The UNITED NATIONS was created in 1945 to utilize a collective security arrangement so as to
prevent threats to international and national security and to involve the world in supporting
American foreign policy.
The INTERNATIONAL MONETARY STRUCTURE attempts to promote economic
development through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
ECONOMIC AID following World War II (e.g., the Marshall Plan) helped to rebuild our allies
and create diplomatic loyalty to the U.S.
REGIONAL SECURITY agreements (e.g., NATO, ANZUS, and SEATO) attempt to address
concerns regarding the ineffectiveness of the United Nations in dealing with conflicts over the
spread of communism.
MILITARY DETERRENCE was viewed as the means of controlling Soviet expansion in Europe
and Asia and resulted in proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam; it also set the stage for U.S.
involvement in the Gulf War.55

WHO MAKES FOREIGN POLICY?

As with all policy making, many people and organizations have a hand in setting United States
foreign policy. The main objective of foreign policy is to use diplomacy — or talking, meeting,
and making agreements — to solve international problems. They try to keep problems from
developing into conflicts that require military settlements.

The President almost always has the primary responsibility for shaping foreign policy. Presidents,
or their representatives, meet with leaders of other nations to try to resolve international problems
peacefully. According to the Constitution, Presidents sign treaties with other nations with the
“advice and consent” of the Senate. So the Senate, and to a lesser extent, the House of
Representatives, also participate in shaping foreign policy.

The Secretary of State and many other officials of the State Department play major roles in setting
foreign policy. The Secretary of State is usually the President’s principal foreign policy adviser,
and he or she is the chief coordinator of all governmental actions that affect relations with other
countries.

20
The Foreign Service consists of ambassadors and other official representatives to more than 160
countries. Ambassadors and their staffs set up embassies in the countries recognized by the United
States and serve as an American presence abroad. The embassies are part of the State Department,
and they protect Americans overseas and are responsible for harmonious relationships with other
countries.56
The National Security Council, as part of the Executive Office of the President, helps the President
deal with foreign, military, and economic policies that affect national security. It consists of the
President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and others that the
President designates. The National Security Adviser — who coordinates the Council — sometimes
has as much influence as the Secretary of State, depending on his or her relationship with the
President.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), one of the best-known agencies that sets foreign policy,
gathers, analyzes, and transmits information from other countries that might be important to the
security of the nation. Although the CIA is notorious for its participation in “spy” work and “top
secret” investigations, much of its work is public and routine. The CIA Director is appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate.

United States foreign policy has changed dramatically from George Washington’s day. Although
Americans always pay attention to the advice of their revered founder, the world is of course not
the same. The many people that shape American foreign policy today accept the fact that the
United States is a member of a world community that cannot afford to ignore the importance of
getting along.57

TEN PRINCIPLES OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:

1. The United States affirms its belief in peace and diplomacy as the first cardinal principle of
its foreign policy stance. That is to say, the U.S. openly announces that it wishes to maintain
peaceful relations with other nations of the world.

2. The United States should remain a member of the United Nations in good standing. People of
the U.S. should be proud of its participation in international organizations. Naturally, we
should our utmost to keep commitments made under international treaties.

21
3. If and when it becomes advisable to consider making changes to one or another aspect of our
foreign policy, the White House should begin an open discussion with both Congress and the
American public. We have had too much secret government machinations in the past.

4. Foreign policy, above all, should represent our unshakable commitment to constitutional
principles and democratic beliefs. Our State Department’s mission should reflect well the
American people’s preference for peaceful, constructive engagement between themselves and
the citizens and governments of other nations.

5. The U.S. would be well-advised to stop supporting military dictatorships around the world. It
should stop giving millions of dollars, primarily in military aid, to dictators who live a lavish
lifestyle, build their own personal fortunes, and use the arms against their own people. This
brutality contradicts fundamental American values while creating distrust and hostility toward
the United States.

6. Another cardinal principle of our foreign policy, therefore, must include non-intervention in
the affairs of other countries. Even as we expect our own sovereignty to be respected, so too
must the US respect the sovereignty of other nations. This pledge of non-interference must
include countries with a different form of government than our own.

7. The US should demonstrate a much greater willingness to build up the infra-structure,

industrial development, and technology of other nations. The poorest regions of the world do
not need more war, famine, and social chaos. These areas are breeding grounds for violence
and terrorism. These regions need communication and transportation systems, water and
electricity, social services, agricultural revitalization, construction projects, a dependable
currency, and a strong modernizing economy for buying and selling.58

8. The U.S. should always remember that its most effective foreign policy is to maintain a
democratic form of government at home alongside a high standard of living for its people. Our
government must understand that America’s influence around the world is best served when
our nation is praised as a role model for a peaceful, productive society—one in which citizens
enjoy both personal freedom and opportunities to build a better life for themselves and their
families.

9. American foreign policy should reflect the good will and generosity of the American
government and people. At every level of society—governmental, scientific, and cultural–we
must be willing to share our knowledge, expertise, and wealth. We must think of ourselves
as global citizens and work to improve the quality of life for everyone through international
agreements and direct people-to-people engagement.

22
10. The United States must recognize that it is this extreme world-wide poverty that is leading to
disastrous social disintegration of nations and the destabilization of entire regions. It is not
enough for the United States and other western nations to pledge peaceful diplomatic
interactions with other governments as one of their foreign policy priorities. The underlying
social and economic conditions that produce the combustible fuel for violence and war must
also be addressed: immediately, consistently, and determinedly over an ever-longer sustained
period of time.59

CONCLUSION:
As the president, congress and others carry out U.S. foreign policy in the areas of trade, diplomacy,
defense, intelligence, foreign aid, and global environmental policy, they pursue a variety of
objectives and face a multitude of challenges. The four main objectives of U.S. foreign policy are
the protection of the United States and its citizens and allies, the assurance of continuing access to
international resources and markets, the preservation of balance of power in the world, and the
protection of human rights and democracy. Like other countries, United States also face many
challenges in making foreign policy, but being a super power and having mature leadership, she
tackle it easily and protect & promote national interest. She adopt such steps in foreign policies
which are beneficent for maintenance of their status of super power.

REFERENCES:
1. V.N. Khanna, International Relations Ed. 5th, Vikas Publishing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi: 2013,
pp.269&270.

2. Edward J. Renehan, JR., The Monroe Doctrine - The cornerstone of American foreign policy,
Chelsea House Publishers: 2007, pp. 11-20.

3. https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/thomas-jefferson-history-of-us-foreign-
policy/#:~:text=Thomas%20Jefferson%27s%20foreign%20policy,end%20the%201790s%20
Federalist%20programs.
Accessed Date: December 27, 2020. Time: 09:27 AM.

4. https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acref
ore-9780199329175-e-661
Accessed Date: December 27, 2020. Time: 09:23 AM.

5. Edward J. Renehan, JR., The Monroe Doctrine - The cornerstone of American foreign policy,
Chelsea House Publishers: 2007, pp. 23-26.

6. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy ed. 2nd, vol. 1. Charles Scribner’s Sons: 2002, p. xx.

23
7. www.encylopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/monroe-doctrine.
Accessed Date: 29 December 2020. Time: 07:01 AM

8. Ibid.

9. Edward J. Renehan, JR., The Monroe Doctrine - The cornerstone of American foreign policy,
Chelsea House Publishers: 2007, pp.109-112.

10. Joyce P. Kaufman, A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, ed. 3rd , Rowman & Littlefield,
New York, Boulder, UK: 2006, 2010, 2014, pp.49-51.

11. Ibid. 51-52.

12. Article “Isolationism and U.S. Foreign Policy After World War I” By Norwich University
Online November 6th, 2017.
https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/resources/isolationism-and-us-foreign-policy-
after-world-war-i.
Accessed Date January 28, 2021. Time: 8:30 PM.

13. Ibid.

14. Alberta Education, Social Studies 30 – Module 5(International Corporation and Confrontation
1919-1936), Distance Learning, ND, p.81.

15. Ibid. 81.

16. Klein Stefan, America First Isolationism In U.S Foreign Policy From The 19th Century To 21st
Century, Naval Postgraduate School, California, U.S.A : June 2017, p.33.

17. Ibid.34.

18. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-history-of-
american-foreign-policy/
(Lumen – Boundless Political Science)
Accessed Da9iolk, te: 16 December 2020. Time: 9:50 AM.

19. Ibid.

24
20. Glenn P. Hastedt, American Foreign Policy Past, Present, & Future, Rowman & Little Field,
New York, London: 2015, 2018, p.56.

21. Stephen E. Ambrose & Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism – American Foreign Policy
Since 1938, Ed. 9th Revised, Penguin Books, New York: 2011, p.48.

22. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-history-of-
american-foreign-policy/
(Lumen – Boundless Political Science)
Accessed Date: 16 December 2020. Time: 9:50 AM.

23. Glenn P. Hastedt, American Foreign Policy Past, Present, & Future, Rowman & Little Field,
New York, London: 2015, 2018, p.15.

24. Dr. Sultan Khan, A Study of International Relations 3 rd Edition, Famous Books, Lahore: 1999,
pp.177-178.

25. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-history-of-
american-foreign-policy/
(Lumen – Boundless Political Science)
Accessed Date: 16 December 2020. Time: 9:50 AM.

26. Ibid.

27. Jeffery Kimball, The Nixon Doctrine: A Saga of misunderstanding, Presidential Studies
Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 1, Presidential Doctrines, Wiley: March 2006, p.59.

28. Richard J. Samuels, Carter Doctrine – U.S. Foreign Policy Initiatives, Sage Publication’s
Encyclopedia of United States National Security, 2005.

29. Ibid.

30. History.com Editor, Reagan Doctrine, A&E Television Networks, November 13, 2009.
https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/the-reagan-doctrine-is-announced
Accessed Date: January 30, 2021. Time: 12:52 PM.
31. Ibid.

32. Michael Cox & Doug Stokes, US Foreign Policy – Ed, 2nd , Oxford University Press, New
York: 2012, pp.77-78.
33. Ibid. 78.

25
34. Cyr, Arthur I., After the Cold War: American Foreign Policy, Europe and Asia, Palgrave
Macmillan, UK: 2000, p.93.

35. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-history-of-
american-foreign-policy/
(Lumen – Boundless Political Science)
Accessed Date: 16 December 2020. Time: 9:50 AM.

36. Annum Chaudhary, New World Order, Education: Dec 13, 2017.
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/Annumchaudhary/new-world-order-84014446.
Accessed Date: January 30, 2021. Time: 6:30 PM.

37. Jessica van der Schalk, Towards a Multipolar World Order, Freedom Lab: January 20, 2020.
Available at https://www.freedomlab.org.com

38. Boutkhil Guemide, Bush and Global War on Terror, Education: January 3, 2020.
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/BoutkhilGuemid1/Bush-and-the-global-war.
Accessed that January 31, 2021. Time: 10:35 AM.
39. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-history-of-
american-foreign-policy/
(Lumen – Boundless Political Science)
Accessed Date: 16 December 2020. Time: 9:50 AM.

40. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies – Inside America War on Terror, Free Press, New
York & London: 2004, p.239.

41. Inderjeet Parmar & others, New Directions in US Foreign Policy, Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, New York & London: 2009, p.18.

42. Meena Bose, Comment: Defining U.S. Foreign Policy in the POST-9/11 World, Diplomatic
History VOL.26, No.4, Oxford University Press:2002, p.620.
Available at https://www.jstore.org/stable/24914281.

43. Antigona21, Obama’s Foreign Policy, News & Politics, June 24, 2013.
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/antigona21/obamas-foreign-policy.
Accessed Date: January 31, 2021. Time: 4:31 PM.

44. Pat Paterson, Origin of U.S. Foreign Policy, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defence
Studies – National Defense University: February 2018, p.35.

26
45. Pat Paterson, Origin of U.S. Foreign Policy, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defence
Studies – National Defense University: February 2018, p.40.

46. Jeremi Suri, How Trump’s Executive Orders Could Set America Back 70 Years, The Atlantic:
January 27, 2017.

47. G. John Lkenberry, The Plot Against American Foreign Policy: Can the Liberal Order
Service? , Foreign Affairs: May/June, 2017.

48. Pat Paterson, Origin of U.S. Foreign Policy, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defence
Studies – National Defense University: February 2018, pp.43-44.

49. Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American Foreign polio and How It Changed the
World, Knopf, New York: 2001.
50. Joseph S. Nye JR., Soft Power, Publication Affairs, New York: 2004, pp. 139-141.

51. Eric Schmitt, “Rumsfeld Says More G.I. Would Not Help U.S. in Iraq,” New York Times,
September 11, 2003.

52. Ibid.
53. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-amgovernment/chapter/defining-foreign-
policy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20objectives%20of,of%20human%20rights%20and
%20democracy.
(OER Services – American Government)
Accessed Date: 18 December 2020. Time: 8:45PM.

54. Ibid.

55. https://wwnorton.com/college/polisci/spitzer/ch13_review.htm
(Essential of American Politics)
Accessed Date: 24 December 2020. Time: 7:56 AM.

56. https://www.ushistory.org/gov/11a.asp
Accessed Date: 24 December 2020. Time: 8:12 AM.

57. Ibid.

58. https://www.rogeramericanwriter.com/foreign-policy-ten-principles-1776-2017/
Accessed Date: December 14, 2020. Time: 10:10 AM.

59. Ibid.
end

27