Foreign policy of the United States 7564 225813320 2008-07-15T15:01:09Z MattieTK 434929 Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/Reconfirmer|Reconfirmer]] to last version by 65.199.13.40 (using [[WP:HG|Huggle]]) {{for|a history|Timeline of United States diplomatic history}} {{For|the published diplomatic papers|Foreign Relations Series}} {{for|Foreign relations under the current administration|Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration}} {{Politics of the United States}} The '''foreign policy of the United States''' is highly influential on the world stage. America's global reach is backed by a 13 trillion dollar economy.<ref>The estimated [[GDP]] of all countries formally recognized by the United States for which data is available is [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html here]; the military expenditures for said countries is available [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html here]; and the political details are available on the main United States page here [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html here].</ref> 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 [[Demography of the United States|American people]] and the international community."<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/pub/ejournalusa/foreignpolagenda.html US Dept of State - Foreign Policy Agenda]</ref> 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 [[Economy of the United States|American business]] abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of [[American ancestry|American citizens]] abroad and expatriation."<ref>[http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/about.asp?nav=jurisdiction Committe on Foreign Affairs: U.S. House of Representatives]</ref> 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== {{Main|Treaty Clause|War Powers Clause|Appointments Clause|Commerce Clause|l4=Foreign Commerce Clause}} Subject to the advice and consent role of the [[U.S. Senate]], the [[President of the United States|President]] negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.<ref> U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html</ref> 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,<ref> U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html</ref> and the civilian and military budget is written by the Congress.<ref> U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html</ref> The [[United States Secretary of State]] is the [[foreign minister]] of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy. Both the Secretary of State and [[ambassador]]s are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress additionally has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. ==Brief history== {{Unreferencedsection|date=March 2008}} === 1776-1898 === [[Image:BainbridgeTribute.jpg|thumb|Capt. [[William Bainbridge]] paying tribute to the Dey of Algiers, circa 1800.]] From the establishment of the [[United States]] after the [[American Revolution]] until the [[Spanish-American War]], U.S. foreign policy reflected the country's regional, as compared to global, focus. 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 [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Britain]], a mutual enemy. After the revolution, the U.S. moved to restore peace and resume its substantial trade with Great Britain in what is called the "Olive Branch Policy". Following French involvement in the Revolution, led by [[Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette]], the United States maintained significant relations with France, as manifested by France presenting the United States with the [[Statue of Liberty]] in 1886. In general, though, the United States followed an isolationist foreign policy until attacks against U.S. shipping by [[Barbary Coast]] [[corsairs]] spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the [[First Barbary War]] in 1801. Early politicians debated the wisdom of developing a navy and becoming involved in international affairs, but the [[United States Navy]] was created to prevent further economic losses: payments in ransom and tribute to the [[Barbary pirate]] states amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800.<ref>{{cite web|last=Oren|first=Michael B.|title=The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815|date=2005-11-03|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html| accessdate=2007-02-18}}</ref> Following that conflict, the United States engaged in a quasi-war with France and the [[War of 1812]] with Great Britain. In response to the new independence of Spanish colonies in [[Latin America]] in the early 1800s, the United States established the [[Monroe Doctrine]] in 1823, a policy declaring its opposition to European interference in the Americas. Around the same time, U.S. expansion, ideologically fueled by "[[manifest destiny]]", led to 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 [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Britain]] and [[Russia]] over the [[Oregon Territory]] and with Spain over [[Florida]] and later [[Cuba]]. In 1854, the U.S. used its Navy to force [[Japan]] to allow international trade. During the [[American Civil War]], the Union states accused Britain and France of supporting the [[Confederate States]]. After the end of British military persuasion in 1815, consolidating its territories following the Civil War and the withdrawal of the last remnants of French influence in the region in 1867 when Mexican forces deposed Emperor Maximilian, the United States was unchallenged regionally. This stability, combined with the country's natural resources and growing population, resulted in substantial domestic prosperity and growth of geopolitical influence. === 1898 - present === Victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the subsequent acquisition of the [[Philippines]] and [[Guam]], marked the United States's shift from a regional to global power and ejected Spain from the Americas. The 1904 [[Roosevelt Corollary]] to the [[Monroe Doctrine]], proclaiming a right for the United States to intervene to stabilize weak states in the region, further weakened European influence in Latin America and established U.S. regional hegemony. Despite its reluctance to involve itself in continental European affairs, the United States entered [[World War I]] after making substantial loans to the [[Allies]] and after attacks by German [[U-boats]] substantially interfered with U.S. shipping. In the peace conference at Versailles, U.S. attempts to shift international relations to an [[idealist]] model became bogged down in the secret agreements made during the war and geopolitical horse-trading. U.S. politics also turned against idealist, international policies and the country returned to a more [[isolationist]] stance. The United States benefited from its expanded role in international commerce but did not participate in international institutions like the League of Nations. [[Image:MerkelBushWashington1.jpg|thumb|German Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]], President [[George W. Bush]]]] 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 [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Fascist Italy]]. Similarly to WWI, the United States made significant loans to the Allies and its domestic industries boomed to produce war materials. After the war and devastation of its European rivals, the United States completed its transition from regional to global hegemon alongside the [[Soviet Union]]. The United States was a major player in the establishment of the [[United Nations]] and became one of five permanent members of the [[Security Council]]. From around 1947 until 1991, U.S. foreign policy was characterized by the [[Cold War]], and by its huge international military [[involvement]]. Seeking an alternative to its isolationist policies after World War I, the United States defined itself against the spread of Soviet communism in a policy called [[Containment]]. The Cold War was characterized by a lack of global wars but a persistence of regional wars, often fought between client states and [[proxies]] of the United States and Soviet Union. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy objectives seeking to limit Soviet influence, involved the United States and its allies in the [[Korean War]], the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Operation Ajax|overthrow]] of the Iranian government, and diplomatic actions like the opening of the [[People's Republic of China]] and establishment of the [[NATO|North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO). By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. had military and economic interests in every region of the globe. In March 1992, the ''New York Times'' received leaked parts of a "Defense Policy Guidance" document prepared by two principle authors at the US Defensce Department, Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby. The policy document laid bare the post-cold war framework through which US foreign policy would hence forth be guided.<ref>http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm</ref> August 1991 marked both the collapse of the Soviet Union and the initiation of the [[Gulf War]] against [[Iraq]] in response to Iraq's [[invasion of Kuwait]]. After the Iraq War, many scholars, such as [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], claim the lack of a new strategic vision for U.S. foreign policy resulted in many missed opportunities for its foreign policy. During the 1990s, the United States mostly scaled back its foreign policy budget while focusing on its domestic economic prosperity. The United States also participated in U.N. peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on the World Trade Center in New York City and Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the United States declared a "[[War on Terrorism]]." Since then, the United States launched wars against Afghanistan and Iraq ([[Iraq War|Second Gulf War]]) while pursuing [[Al-Qaeda]] and other terrorist organizations on a global level.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/102655/Opinions-Iraq-War-Show-Little-Movement.aspx Opinions of Iraq War Show Little Movement<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> == Foreign policy law == {{Refimprove|date=June 2006}} In the [[United States]], the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. [[United States|U.S.]] law distinguishes what it calls '''treaties''', which are derived from the [[Treaty Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]], from '''congressional-executive agreements''' and '''executive agreements'''. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification (by 2/3rds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone) and their relationship to domestic law. ===Congressional-executive agreements vs. treaties=== {{main|Treaty Clause}} Article II, Section 2 of the [[United States Constitution]] grants power to the [[President of the United States|President]] to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the [[United States Senate|Senate]]. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate ''and'' the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]]. However, throughout U.S. history, the President has also made "international agreements" through '''congressional-executive agreements''' (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole '''executive agreements''' made by the President alone. Though the constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative procedure and although some noted constitutional scholars, such as [[Laurence Tribe]], believe that CEAs are unconstitutional, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] has considered these agreements to be valid, and that any disagreements are a political question for the executive and legislative branches to work out amongst themselves. In addition, U.S. law distinguishes between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws. ===Domestic vs. international law=== The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law from many other nations, particularly European ones. Unlike nations that view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, American law is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so. The U.S. is not a party to the [[Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties|Vienna Convention]]. However, the [[State Department]] has taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution — a position mandated by the Supreme Court's 1957 ruling in ''[[Reid v. Covert]].'' However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier. ==Diplomatic relations== [[Image:Diplomatic relations of the United States.png|thumb|250px|Map indicating states and territories and their diplomatic relations with the U.S.<br />{{legend|#002868|the United States}} {{legend|#00C000|Nations with which the US has diplomatic relations}} {{legend|#FF0000|Nations with which the US does not have diplomatic relations}} {{legend|#C0C000|disputed areas}}]] [[Image:Bush and Blair at Camp David.jpg|thumb|[[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]] (right) at [[Camp David]] in March 2003, hosting the former [[British Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]].]] 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.|Washington, D.C]]. Only a few [[countries]] do not have formal [[diplomatic relations]] with the United States. They are: *{{flagicon|Bhutan}} '''[[Bhutan]]''' (The U.S. Embassy in [[New Delhi]], India, has consular responsibilities for Bhutan)<ref>[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35839.htm Article on Bhutan</ref> *{{flagicon|Cuba}} '''[[Cuba]]''' *{{flagicon|Iran}} '''[[Iran]]''' (the ambassador of [[Switzerland]] acts as intermediary between Tehran and Washington DC) *{{flagicon|Northern Cyprus}} '''[[Northern Cyprus]]''' (recognized by only Turkey) *{{flagicon|North Korea}} '''[[North Korea]]''' *{{flagicon|ROC}} '''[[Republic of China]]''' (recognized by fewer than 30 countries, including the [[Holy See]], commonly known as The Vatican.) *{{flagicon|Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}} '''[[Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic|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|Republic of China (Taiwan)]], [[de facto]] [[diplomatic relations]] are conducted through the [[American Institute in Taiwan]]. The U.S. also operates an [[United States Interests Section in Havana|"Interests Section in Havana"]]. While this does not create a formal diplomatic relationship, it fulfils most other typical embassy functions. There is [[Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States|Representative Office of Northern Cyprus]] in Washington, D.C., also there is Representative United States in [[Nicosia]] in Northern Cyprus. 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== {{see|Special relationship}} {{see|Anglosphere}} [[Image:USA military relations 2007.png|thumb|left|A map of allies of the United States<br /> {{legend|#3300CC|[[NATO]] member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions}} {{legend|#6666FF|[[Major non-NATO ally|Major non-NATO allies]], plus [[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]]}} {{legend|#99CCFF|Signatories of [[Partnership for Peace]] with NATO}}]] 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. 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. [[Image:BushandSingh02Mar2006.jpg|thumb|In recent years, [[United States - India Relations|relations]] between the United States and [[India]], have improved. Shown here are [[Prime Minister of India]] [[Manmohan Singh]] and George W. Bush exchanging handshakes in March 2006.]] Other allies include [[South Korea]], [[Israel]], [[Germany]], [[Poland]], [[Turkey]], [[Pakistan]], 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 [[Asia]]n ally of the United States. In 2005, U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] and [[Prime Minister of India|Indian Prime Minister]] [[Manmohan Singh]] signed a [[United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act|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 [[Smiling Buddha|detonated a nuclear device]] in 1974. The deal will greatly increase strategic and economic cooperation between the world's two largest democracies<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india17nov17,1,6810342.story?coll=la-headlines-world LA Times article on Indo-US Deal]</ref>. 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 [[List of joint US-Bulgarian military bases|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 (international law)|immunity from prosecution]] in this country <ref name="Dilucci">[http://www.legrandsohi manir.info/article.php3?id_article=3651 OTAN - Le grand jeu des bases militaires en terre européenne], Manlio Dilucci, French translation published on May 9, 2006 in ''[[Le Grand Soir]]'' newspaper of an article originally published in ''[[Il Manifesto]]'' on April 30, 2006 </ref>. Another agreement with [[Romania]] permits the US to use the [[Mihail Kogălniceanu International Airport|Mihail Kogălniceanu]] base and another one nearby <ref name="Dilucci"/>. ==Persian Gulf== {{see|Energy policy of the United States|Petroleum politics}} [[Image:Iraq-oil-power.jpg|thumb|An oil power plant in [[Iraq]], which has world's second largest proven [[oil reserves]].<ref>[http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm Iraq: Oil and Economy]</ref>]] The U.S. currently produces about 40% of the [[Petroleum|oil]] that it consumes; its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s. Since the U.S.'s [[oil consumption]] continues to rise, and its oil production continues to fall, this ratio may continue to decline.<ref>[http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries]</ref> President [[George W. Bush]] has identified dependence on imported oil as a urgent ''national security concern.''<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China Falls as Oil Prices Rise], Bloomberg.com</ref> Two-thirds of the world's proven [[oil reserves]] are estimated to be found in the [[Persian Gulf]].<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D6123AF93AA15752C0A9649C8B63 Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia], New York Times</ref><ref>[http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/environment/alternative-energy/end-cheap-oil.html The End of Cheap Oil], National Geographic</ref> The Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during [[World War II]]. [[Petroleum]] is of central importance to modern armies, and the United States—as the world's leading oil producer at that time—supplied most of the oil for the [[Allies of World War II|Allied]] armies. Many American strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the U.S. oil supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with [[Saudi Arabia]], a kingdom with large oil reserves.<ref>[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth]</ref> The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the [[Cold War]]. Three Cold War [[United States Presidential doctrines]]—the [[Truman Doctrine]], the [[Eisenhower Doctrine]], and the [[Nixon Doctrine]]—played roles in the formulation of the [[Carter Doctrine]], which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its [[national interest]]s in the [[Persian Gulf]] region.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20874331/ The war is about oil but it's not that simple], msnbc.com</ref> Carter's successor, President [[Ronald Reagan]], extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the ''"Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine"'', which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the [[Iran-Iraq War]].<ref>[http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/sword-shield.htm The United States Navy and the Persian Gulf]</ref> Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the [[Iraq War|2003 Iraq War]].<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996605.html What if the Chinese were to apply the Carter Doctrine?], Haaretz - Israel News</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921819,00.html Selling the Carter Doctrine], TIME</ref><ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil], Times Online</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/20/iraq.oil Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq], The Guardian</ref> == Relations with Latin America == {{main|United States-Latin American relations}} In the [[Cold War]] era the U.S. feared Communism and in some cases overthrew or opposed democratically elected governments perceived at the time as becoming Communist.<ref name="Foreign Affairs">{{cite web|url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85302-p0/jorge-g-castaneda/latin-america-s-left-turn.html|title=Latin America's Left Turn|publisher=www.foreignaffairs.org|date=|accessdate=23 March|accessyear=2008}}</ref> Examples include the [[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état]], the [[1973 Chilean coup d'état]] and the support of the [[Contras]]. The 80s and 90s saw a democratic shift of power towards free markets, and a polarization of the political election systems of many of the Latin American nations.{{Fact|date=June 2008}}<!-- this is true for argentina & arguably for venezuela, but where else? peru was 79, chile was ... 1975ish, colombia 74. bolivia was a democracy that survived a failed military coup in 81. Should this be 70's-80's instead? --> Recently several left-wing parties have gained power through elections. In particular [[Venezuela]] has been critical of the US. [[Nicaragua]], [[Bolivia]], and [[Ecuador]] currently have governments sometimes seen as aligned with Venezuela. Left-wing governments in nations such as [[Brazil]], [[Argentina]], and [[Chile]] are more moderate. Governments in [[Peru]] and [[Colombia]] have closer relations with the US. U.S promotion of democracy was emphasized by [[Jimmy Carter]]. Paricularly in his first term, [[Ronald Reagan]] prioritized his struggle against Communism and supported several dictatorships.<ref name="LAarchive">[http://www.march.es/ceacs/publicaciones/working/archivos/1994_61.pdf]</ref> After the Soviet collapse, both President [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[Bill Clinton]] supported democracy development.<ref name="LAarchive" /> According to some theorists there is at least a superficial correlation between periods of democracy development and US policy towards democracy in Latin America.<ref name="LAarchive" /> Also earlier periods of US democracy support occurred when democracies become more common. Such periods occurred during the 1920s, 1945-48, and 1958-63.<ref name="LAarchive" /> == Puerto Rico == [[Puerto Rico]] is is a semi-autonomous territory of the United States. Puerto Ricans are subject to laws passed by the [[United States Congress]] without their consent and they are excluded from elections to Congress and President (although, as US citizens, they are free to move to any of the 50 states and cast votes in elections there). According to the U.S. President's Task Force Report on the Political Status of Puerto Rico,<ref name=status>{{cite web |url=http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf |title= Appendix A Presidential Documents |month=December |year=2005 |accessdate=2007-10-01|format=PDF}}</ref> (which was enabled by executive order from President Clinton in 2000 and was expressly endorsed by the George W. Bush Administration), Congress has "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf |title=Political Status of Puerto Rico: Background, Options, and Issues in the 109th Congress |date=[[May 25]], [[2005]] |author=Keith Bea |publisher=Congressional Research Service |accessdate=2007-10-01|format=PDF}}</ref> The Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status states that Puerto Ricans are US citizens. There is an elected local government for internal administration. Puerto Rico is not an US state but this has allowed Congress to exempt the Puerto Rican people from most federal income tax laws and to provide them with other tax preferences. There have been four plebiscites all of which found support for the current Commonwealth status. Almost as many voters have favored statehood. Only 2.54% voted for independence in 1998.<ref name=status>{{cite web |url=http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf |title= Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status |month=December |year=2005 |accessdate=2007-10-01|format=PDF}}</ref> <ref name=status2007>{{cite web |url=http://www.primerahora.com/XStatic/primerahora/docs/espanol/whitehousestatusreport.pdf |title= Report by the President's task force on Puerto Rico's Status |month=December |year=2007 |accessdate=2007-12-24|format=PDF}}</ref> ==Illicit drugs== United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to halt imports of illicit [[illegal drug trade|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 [[Prohibition (drugs)|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 [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050915-2.html], 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]].{{Fact|date=March 2008}} As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.<ref>Fox News, 1st November, 2004 [http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041101-iraq-basing.htm Analysts Ponder U.S. Basing in Iraq]</ref> ==Missile defense== In February 2007 US started formal negotiations with [[Poland]] and [[Czech Republic]] concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a [[Ground-Based Midcourse Defense]] system. According to press reports the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree<ref>Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech Republic[http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/upl/zpravy/100761s_pm80306.pdf]</ref>) to host a [[missile defense]] radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6704669.stm Europe diary: Missile defence], BBC News</ref><ref>[http://www.rand.org/commentary/032907IHT.html Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe]</ref> [[Russia]] threatened to place short-range [[nuclear missiles]] on the Russia’s border with [[NATO]] if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in [[Poland]] and the [[Czech Republic]].<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569495/Russia-piles-pressure-on-EU-over-missile-shield.html Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield], Telegraph</ref><ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/23/asia/AS-GEN-China-Russia.php China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn US missile defense plans], International Herald Tribune</ref> In April 2007, Putin warned of a new [[Cold War]] if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/11/usa.topstories3 Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence], The Guardian</ref> Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under a [[Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty]] of 1987 with the United States.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-12-us-russia_N.htm U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense], USATODAY.com</ref> ==Territorial disputes== The United States is involved with several territorial disputes, including maritime disputes with [[Canada]] over the [[Dixon Entrance]], [[Beaufort Sea]], [[Strait of Juan de Fuca]], [[Northwest Passage]], and areas around [[Machias Seal Island]] and [[North Rock]]. <ref name="CIA-transnational">[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Issues "Transnational Issues"]. April 20, 2006. CIA World factbook. Accessed April 30, 2006.</ref> These disputes have become dormant recently, and are largely considered not to affect the strong [[Canada-United States relations|relations]] between the two nations. Other disputes include: *The [[Guantanamo Bay Naval Base|U.S. Naval Base]] at [[Guantánamo Bay]], which is leased from [[Cuba]]. 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]]. However, even though the conditions surrounding the lease agreement can be debated, the fourth article of that same treaty specifies the non-retroactivity of its law on treaties made before it. *[[Haiti]] claims [[Navassa Island]]. *The 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. *The [[Marshall Islands]] claim [[Wake Island]]. ==History of exporting democracy through military intervention== {{Further|[[List of United States military history events]]}} {{Further|[[Covert U.S. regime change actions]]}} {{Further|[[Democratic peace theory]]}} {{Further|[[Iran Freedom and Support Act]]}} In the history of the United States, presidents have often used [[democracy]] as a justification for [[List of United States military history events|military intervention]] abroad,<ref name="Why">{{cite journal |first =Bruce Bueno de |last =Mesquita |authorlink = |coauthors =George W. Downs |year =2004 |month =Spring |title =Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work |journal =Hoover Digest |volume =2 |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://www.hooverdigest.org/042/bdm.html }} Also see [http://www.geocities.com/travbailey/why.html this page].</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first =James |last =Meernik |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =1996 |month = |title =United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy |journal =Journal of Peace Research |volume =33 |issue =4 |pages =391–402 |id = |url = |doi =10.1177/0022343396033004002 }} p. 391 </ref>, 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.<ref name="operation"> {{cite journal |first =John A. |last =Tures |authorlink = |coauthors = |year = |month = |title =Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations |journal = Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url = http://diplomacy.shu.edu/journal/new/pdf/VolVINo1/09_Tures.pdf }}PDF file.</ref> 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."<ref name = "Abraham"> {{cite book |last =Lowenthal |first =Abraham |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =1991 |title =The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History |publisher =Johns Hopkins University Press |location =Baltimore |id = }} In ''Exporting Democracy, Themes and Issues'', edited by Abraham Lowenthal p. 243-265. </ref><ref name="mark7"> {{cite book |last =Penceny |first =Mark |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =1999 |title =Democracy at the Point of Bayonets |publisher =University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press |location = |id =ISBN 0-271-01883-6 }} p. 183</ref> But some studies, such as a study by Tures find [[List of United States military history events|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.<ref name="promote">{{cite journal | first =Margaret G. | last =Hermann | coauthors =Charles W. Kegley, Jr. | year = 1998| month =1998 | title =The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record | journal =International Interactions | volume =24 | issue =2 | pages =91–114 | doi =10.1080/03050629808434922}}</ref> ===Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy=== Professor Paul W. Drake writes 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 [[invasion|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.<ref name="LA">{{cite book | last =Lowenthal | first =Abraham F. | date =[[March 1]], [[1991]] | title =Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America | publisher =The Johns Hopkins University Press | id =ISBN 0-8018-4132-1}} p. 1, 4, 5.</ref> 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."<ref name = "Walter"> {{cite book | last =Lafeber | first =Walter | year =1993 | title =Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America | publisher =W. W. Norton & Company | id =ISBN 0-393-30964-9}}</ref> [[List of political scientists|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.<ref name="Why2">Factors included #limits on [[executive power]], #clear rules for the transition of power, #[[Universal suffrage|universal adult suffrage]], and #competitive elections.</ref> 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 become a democracies or become more authoritarian after 10 years.<ref>{{cite journal |first =Samia Amin |last =Pei |authorlink = |coauthors =Seth Garz |year =2004 |month =March 17 |title =Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course |journal =International Herald Tribune |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1479 }}</ref> Professor [[Joshua Muravchik]] argues that U.S. occupation was critical for [[Axis Powers|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."<ref name="Mark4">Penceny, p. 186.</ref><ref name = "joshua"> {{cite book |last =Muravchik |first =Joshua |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =1991 |title =Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny |publisher =American Enterprise Institute Press |location =Washington, DC |id =ISBN 0-8447-3734-8 }} p. 91-118.</ref> 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]].<ref name="LA">{{cite journal |first = Stephen D. |last = Krasner |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2003 |month = November 26 |title = We Don't Know How To Build Democracy |journal = Los Angeles Times |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://cddrl.stanford.edu/news/krasner_opinion_piece_in_la_times_asserts_we_dont_know_how_to_build_democracy_20031117/ }} </ref> ===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.<ref name="operation"/> ===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.<ref name="promote"/> 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."<ref>{{cite journal |first =Adam |last =Przeworski |authorlink = |coauthors =Michael M. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub |year =1996 |month = |title =What Makes Democracy Endure |journal =Journal of Democracy |volume =7 |issue =1 |pages =39–55 |id = |url =http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/journal_of_democracy/v007/7.1przeworski.html |doi =10.1353/jod.1996.0016 |format ={{Dead link|date=June 2008}} &ndash; <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3APrzeworski+intitle%3AWhat+Makes+Democracy+Endure&as_publication=Journal+of+Democracy&as_ylo=1996&as_yhi=1996&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup> }}</ref> 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.<ref>Penceny, p. 193</ref> Penceny states that the United States has attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 twentieth-century military interventions.<ref name="mark6">Penceny, p. 2</ref> Penceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.<ref>Review: {{cite journal |first =Michael |last =Shifter |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2001 |month =Winter |title =Democracy at the Point of Bayonets |journal =Latin American Politics and Society |volume =43 |issue = |pages =150 |id = |url =http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200101/ai_n8943833 |doi =10.2307/3177036 }}</ref> ==Criticisms == Critics of U.S. foreign policy suggest that U.S. foreign policy rhetoric contradicts some of the U.S. government's actions abroad. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/ludlow3.html] [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Machiavelli_ForPol.html][http://www.fff.org/comment/com0508m.asp][http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/dailyUpdate.html][http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11162][http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10185] Some of these criticisms include: * The long list of [[Military history of the United States|U.S. military involvements]] that stand in contrast to the rhetoric of promoting peace and respect for the sovereignty of nations. * The many former and current [[dictatorship]]s that receive or have received U.S. financial or military support, especially in [[Latin America]], [[Southeast Asia]], and the [[Middle East]], despite the U.S. claiming to support democracy and democratic principles. * The U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4374502.stm|title=Canada attacks US on wood tariffs|publisher=[[BBC]]|date=|accessdate=24 March|accessyear=2008}}</ref> 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 [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]) when compared to other western countries (taking into consideration only government foreign aid, and not donations through private charities) * Lack of support for environmental treaties, such as the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. * Frequent mention of concern for human rights, despite refusing to ratify the [[Convention on 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 paramilitary organizations, for example the [[Contras]] in [[Nicaragua]].<ref name=boston>{{cite news|url=http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/05/24/report_hits_us_on_human_rights/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News|title=Report hits US on human rights|publisher=[[Associated Press]] (published on [[The Boston Globe]])|first=Raphael|last=Satter|date=[[2007-05-24]]|accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://hrw.org/wr2k2/us.html|title=World Report 2002: United States|publisher=[[Human Rights Watch]]|accessdate=2007-06-02}}</ref> * [[American exceptionalism]] the sense that America is qualitatively different from other countries and the pertaining conviction that American cannot be judged by the same standard as other countries. For instance, that America is retaining its own nuclear weapons while trying to prevent nuclear proliferation is often seen as hypocritical. [[Image:gloria arroyo with bush.jpg|thumb|285px|[[President of the Philippines|Philippine President]] [[Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo]] with [[George W. Bush]] inspects the [[Malacanang Palace]] Honor Guards during the latter's 8-hour State Visit to the [[Philippines]] in October 2003]] Criticisms of the effectiveness of US foreign policy include: * An inability to combine strategic military objectives and diplomatic and political objectives. In short, this means an ineffective follow-up to military operations by being unable or unwanting to determine diplomatic and political goals, resulting in unfavorable situations to either the United States or friendly involved parties. Examples include: the absence of any treaties or objectives for post-war Germany and Europe during the [[Second World War]], resulting in the Soviet occupation of most of Eastern Europe; the absence of diplomatic/political objectives to follow-up on military victory in the [[Korean War]] resulting in an ongoing preservation of the 1953 status-quo; inadequately defined objectives for the [[Vietnam War]], resulting in a Communist take-over of the region; and most recently the failure to develop plans to rebuild and restabilize Iraq after the defeat of [[Saddam Hussein]], leading to the ongoing destabilization of the surrounding region and huge expenses required by the United States itself.<ref>Henry Kissinger, ''Diplomacy'', Kissinger sees the gap between military action and political objectives as characteristic for US foreign policy in the 20th century</ref> Charges of negative influence have been levied even in countries traditionally considered [[allies]] of the United States.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6421597.stm Israel, Iran top 'negative list']By Nick Childs, 6 March 2007</ref> Further, some opinions have stated that under the [[Nuremberg Principles]], the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which was not a war to defend against an imminent threat, but rather a war of aggression, constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow.<ref>[http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/7_1_1950.pdf Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.] on the website of the [[United Nations]]</ref> For example, [[Benjamin B. Ferencz|Benjamin Ferencz]], 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 [[2003 invasion of Iraq|invasion]] of Iraq.<ref name = "NYCJosh_use_ref_tags"> {{cite journal |first =Aaron |last =Glantz |authorlink = |coauthors = |year = 2006 |month =August 25 |title =Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor |journal =OneWorld.net |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-06.htm }}</ref> Similarly, under the United Nations [[United Nations Charter|Charter]], ratified by the U.S. and therefore binding on it, all UN member states including the U.S. are prohibited from using force against fellow member states (Iraq is a member of the UN) except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit UN Security Council authorization (UN Charter; [[international law]]). "There was no authorization from the [[United Nations Security Council|UN 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.<ref name = "NYCJosh_use_ref_tags_dammnit"> {{cite journal |first =Hal |last =Bernton |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2006 |month =August 18 |title =Iraq war bashed at hearing for soldier who wouldn't go |journal =The Seattle Times |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003207442_watada18m.html }}</ref> 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 [[Realism in international relations|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]] or [[nation-building]] abroad was one of the major tenets of President [[Woodrow Wilson]]'s diplomatic philosophy (despite not being mentioned in Wilson's [[Fourteen Points]])<ref>[[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] [[s:Fourteen Points Speech|Fourteen Points Speech]]</ref>, and the failure of the [[League of Nations]] to enforce the will of the international community in the cases of [[Nazi Germany]], [[Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)|Fascist Italy]], and [[Imperial Japan]] in the 1930s, as well as the inherent weakness of the new states created at the [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|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 U.S. to join the organization, driven primarily by strong renewed isolationist sentiment at home. Noam Chomsky writes that Thomas Carruthers, who was in [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]]'s State Department in the 1980s and who was involved with the Democracy Enhancement programs in Latin America primarily has concluded that the efforts were a failure, and in fact a systematic failure. "Where US influence was the least there you found the most progress towards democracy.... But where the U.S. had influence, it sought only limited, top down forms of democracy that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States had long been allied." <ref>{{cite speech |title = 21st Century: Democracy or Absolutism |author = Noam Chomsky |first = Noam |last = Chomsky |authorlink =Noam Chomsky |date = [[October 17]], [[1994]] |location = Chicago |url = http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/talks/9410-chicago.html |accessdate = 2008-02-19 }}</ref> 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 torture and prisoner abuse|Abu Ghraib]] ([[Iraq]]), [[Central Intelligence Agency#Secret CIA Prisons|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 [http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng] says that: "the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the [[gulag]] of our times" [http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/message-eng]. 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 [[United Nations General Assembly|UN 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" [http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/intro-index-eng]. Government responses to these criticisms include that Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and the network of secret [[Central Intelligence Agency]] 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 governmental spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of [[Gross domestic product]] (GDP) when compared to other western countries. In fact the US ranks 21 of 22 [[Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]] (OECD) countries, assigning just 0.17% of GDP to overseas aid (compared with the most generous, Sweden, which gives 1.03%).<ref>[http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global Issues<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> This is despite a promise made by OECD countries to raise overseas aid to 0.7% of GDP first made over 35 years ago and most recently reiterated at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in [[Monterrey]], [[Mexico]].<ref>[http://mirror.undp.org/unmillenniumproject/facts/qa4_e.htm UN Millennium Project © 2005 | Fast Facts<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> US overseas aid was in fact reduced by 15.8% from 2005 to 2006.<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/30/40039096.gif OECD Statistics]</ref> Official aid statistics do not include [[charitable organization]]s. Through the many tax privileges that the United States grants to its nonprofit organizations, the government implicitly foots some portion of the bill anytime these organizations send money abroad for development purposes.[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=951236] However, though many Americans believe that the US is the only nation which offers tax relief for charitable giving, nearly all of the 22 OECD countries also offer such incentives, in fact only [[Austria]], [[Finland]] and [[Sweden]] do not.<ref>[http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global Issues<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> 79 percent of total foreign aid came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, according to the annual Index of Global Philanthropy. According to the index the United States is the top donor in absolute amounts and the seventh of 22 in terms of GNI percentage.[http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/May/20070524165115zjsredna0.2997553.html] However, almost half the 'aid' measured by the Global Philanthropy Index is made up of [[remittance]]s by foreign nationals in the United States and it is highly questionable whether these can be included as US giving.<ref>[http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#SideNoteonPrivateRemittances US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global Issues<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Another index which ranks countries according to quality-adjusted aid and charitable giving, including private donations but not remittances, ranks the US 20 of 21 in terms of percentage of GDP which is donated to overseas aid.<ref>[http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#AdjustingAidNumberstoFactorPrivateContributionsandmore US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global Issues<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> == Support == Regarding support for various dictatorships, especially during the [[Cold War]], a response is that they were seen as necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz challenges the notion that this violation of core American values actually served U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center, while the '[[Political realism|realist]]' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.<ref>The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989. David F. Schmitz. 2006. </ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/12/11/ixopinion.html Do the sums, then compare US and Communist crimes from the Cold War] Telegraph, 11/12/2005, Niall Ferguson</ref> Halperin et al writes that there is a widely held view that poor countries need to delay democracy until they develop. The argument went —as presented in the writings of [[Samuel Huntington]] and [[Seymour Martin Lipset]]— that if a poor country became democratic, because of the pressures in a democracy to respond to the interests of the people, they would borrow too much, they would spend the money in ways that did not advance development. These poor decisions would mean that development would not occur; and because people would then be disappointed, they would return to a dictatorship. Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator—it was never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank account—wait until that produces development, which produces a middle class, and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will have a democratic government. The study argues that this is wrong. Poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.<ref> Morton Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, Michael M. Weinstein, Joanne J. Myers [http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5129.html The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace] March 17, 2005</ref> Many of the U.S.'s former enemies have democratized, and many have become U.S. 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), the [[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 U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9266967][http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/407850/all] Research on the [[democratic peace theory]] has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example [[Spencer R. Weart]] argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.<ref>{{cite book | author=Weart, Spencer R. | title=Never at War | publisher=Yale University Press | year=1998 | id=ISBN 0-300-07017-9 }}p. 221-224, 314.</ref> That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10.html U.S. Code Collection: Title 10 - Armed Forces] Cornell University Law School</ref> The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control. Empirical studies (see [[democide]]) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.<ref> DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Online links: [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM][http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.FIG23.4.GIF][http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.FIG2.GIF]</ref><ref>''[http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/genocide/ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?]'', Barbara Harff, 2003.</ref> Media may be biased against the US regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that ''New York Times'' coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.<ref name=Caliendo1999>{{cite journal | author = Caliendo, S.M. | coauthors = Gibney, M.; Payne, A. | year = 1999 | title = All the News That's Fit to Print? New York Times Coverage of Human-Rights Violations | journal = The Harvard International Journal of Press Politics | volume = 4 | pages = 48–69 | url = http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/harvard_international_journal_of_press_politics/v004/4.4caliendo.html | accessdate = 2008-04-02}}</ref><ref name=>{{cite journal |author = Caliendo, Stephen. and Gibney, Mark. |year = 2006 |title = American Print Media Coverage of Human Rights Violations |url = http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152798_index.html?type=info |accessdate = 2008-04-02 }}</ref> For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the [[Second Congo War]], which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military and have a less active foreign policy since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.<ref>[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9266967 Give peace a rating] May 31 2007 From The Economist print edition</ref><ref>[http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/407850/all Japan ranked as world's 5th most peaceful nation: report] Japan Today, May 31 2007</ref> [[Niall Ferguson]] argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for all the human rights violations in nations they have supported. He writes that it is generally agreed that Guatemala was the worst of the US-backed regimes during the Cold War. However, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long [[Guatemalan Civil War]].<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/12/11/ixopinion.html Do the sums, then compare US and Communist crimes from the Cold War] Telegraph, 11/12/2005, Niall Ferguson</ref> The US Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the US helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.<ref>[http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm Report on the Guatemala Review] Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.</ref> Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "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."[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/democ/] According to former U.S. 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."<ref> {{cite web | author=Clinton, Bill | title=1994 State Of The Union Address|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou94.htm|accessdate=2006-01-22 }}</ref> In one view mentioned by the U.S. 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.[http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/USINFO/Products/Webchats/bohn_27_mar_2007.html] The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/] 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. [[Ambassador]]s and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c18970.htm] ==Quotes== {{cquote|No state has more consistently proclaimed its adherence to this liberal vision of the international system than the United States.<ref name="mark3">Penceny, p. 1.</ref>}} {{cquote|Electorism is the faith (widely held by U.S. policymakers) that merely holding elections will channel political action into peaceful contests among elites and accord public legitimacy to the winners in there contests. Electorism requires that foreign or domestic elites do some political engineering to produce the most common surface manifestations of a democratic polity--parties, electoral laws, contested campaigns, and the like. Yet this sort of tinkering, however will-intended, cannot by itself produce the consensus...which must underlie any enduring democracy.<ref>Loenthal, p. 6. Quoting Karl, Terry, "Imposing Consent? Electorism vs. Democratization in El Salvador," in {{cite book |last =Drake |first =Paul W. |authorlink = |coauthors =Eduardo Silva (eds.) |year =1986 |title =Elections and Democratization in Latin America, 1980-1985 |publisher =Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies |location =La Jolla, California |id =ISBN 9997023889 }} p. 9-36</ref>}} {{cquote|Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.<ref>Vladimir Putin, Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy 02/10/2007 ,</ref>}} 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: {{cquote|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.<ref>General Smedley Darlington Butler, Common Sense, 1935</ref>}} ==See also== {{AmericanEmpire}} *[[Advice and consent]] *[[American empire]] *[[American diplomatic missions]] *[[American Interventions in the Middle East]] *[[Carter Doctrine]] *[[Council on Foreign Relations]] *[[Energy policy of the United States]] *[[Extraordinary rendition]] *[[George Washington's Farewell Address]] *[[2003 invasion of Iraq]] *[[List of joint US-Bulgarian military bases]] *[[List of United States military history events]] *[[NATO]] *[[Reid v. Covert]] *[[Special relationship]] *[[Timeline of United States diplomatic history]] *[[Treaty Clause]] *[[United States and the United Nations]] *[[United States, Chanceries of Foreign Governments]] *[[Unlawful combatant]] {{US bilateral}} ==References== <references/> ==External links== * [http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america "How the World Sees America", Amar C. Bakshi], "Washington Post/Newsweek", 2007. * [http://www.cgs.uiuc.edu/resources/occasional_papers/bushdoctrine.pdf ''Getting beyond the Bush Doctrine, Edward A. Kolodziej''], ''Center for Global Studies'', December, 2006. * [http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html A site critical of U.S. foreign policy during the last 60 years] * [http://www.cfr.org/publication/9488/ U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy], a Background Q&A by [http://www.cfr.org cfr.org], the website of the Council on Foreign Relations * [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/ U.S. State Dept. Documentary: Foreign Relations of the United States] * [http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Foreign Relations of the United States] 1861-1960 (full text from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries) * [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ Timeline of U.S. diplomatic history] * [http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2002-intro.pdf Introduction to U.S. foreign aid] * [http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2002part17.pdf Foreign aid by country] * [http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17079&prog=zgp&proj=zsa India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States"] *An analysis of the strained love-hate [http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2005-daily/27-09-2005/oped/o4.htm relationship between U.S. and Pakistan] by Prof. [[Adil Najam]] of the [[Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy]] published in [[The News International]] * [http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index] Tracking survey of American public attitudes on foreign policy, conducted by Public Agenda with [[Foreign Affairs]] magazine. * [http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=440 Speech] by Secretary of State [[Condoleezza Rice]] on U.S. Policy in [[East Asia]] at the [[Heritage Foundation]] on [[October 25]] [[2006]] * [http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/world.html An interactive map of some examples of a sampling of U.S. Foreign Policy] * [http://philip.pristine.net/formosa/falick.html America and Taiwan, 1943-2004]* * [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=708243 Analysis of Congressional-Executive Agreements (Article by Steve Charnovitz from the American Journal of International Law)] * [http://www.chizeng.com/nixon/ Nixon's Visit to China and how it Began a New Sino-American Relationship] * [http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf A PDF file of the Congressional Research Service report, Library of Congress, ''Treaties and other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate''] ==Further reading== ===History of exporting democracy=== *{{cite journal |first = Robert J. |last = Barro |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2002 |month = Spring |title = Democracy in Afghanistan: Don't Hold Your Breath |journal = Hoover Digest |volume = |issue =2 |pages = |id = |url =http://www.hooverdigest.org/022/barro.html }}* * Matthew J. Morgan [http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Born-Insiders-Terrorism-Afghanistan/dp/0275999998/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206343706&sr=1-1 A Democracy is Born: An Insider's Account of the Battle Against Terrorism in Afghanistan 2008] *{{cite journal |first = Thomas |last = Carothers |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2003 |month = January/February |title = Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror |journal = Foreign Affairs |volume = |issue = |pages =84 |id = |url =http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101faessay10224/thomas-carothers/promoting-democracy-and-fighting-terror.html }}* *{{cite journal |first = Larry |last = Diamond |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2004 |month = |title = The Long Haul |journal = Hoover Digest |volume = |issue =2 |pages = |id = |url =http://www.hooverdigest.org/042/diamond.html }}* *{{cite journal |first =David P. |last =Forsythe |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2000 |month = |title = U.S. Foreign Policy and Enlarging the Democratic Community |journal = Human Rights Quarterly |volume =22 |issue =4 |pages =988–1010 |id = |url =http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v022/22.4forsythe.html |doi = 10.1353/hrq.2000.0043 |format = {{Dead link|date=June 2008}} &ndash; <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3AForsythe+intitle%3AU.S.+Foreign+Policy+and+Enlarging+the+Democratic+Community&as_publication=Human+Rights+Quarterly&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2000&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup> }}* *{{cite journal |first =Nils Petter |last =Gleditsch |authorlink = |coauthors =Lene Siljeholm, Havard Hegre |year =2004 |month =April 13-18 |title =Democratic Jihad? Military Intervention and Democracy |journal =Paper presented at the workshop on Resources, Governance Structure and Civil War, Uppsala, Sweden |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url = }} ''Finds that democratization is unpredictable in the long-term.'' *{{cite journal |first =William Anthony |last =Hay |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2006 |month =April 28 |title =Can Democracy Be Imposed from the Outside? |journal =Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/24524.html }} ''Alternative [http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200604.americawar.hay.democratizationorderforeignpolicy.html 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.'' *{{cite journal |first =Margaret G. |last =Hermann |authorlink = |coauthors =Charles W. Kegley, Jr. |year =1998 |month =1998 |title =The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record |journal =International Interactions |volume =24 |issue =2 |pages =91–114 |id = |url = |doi =10.1080/03050629808434922 }} ''Uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.'' *{{cite journal |first = Stephen D. |last = Krasner |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2003 |month = November 26 |title = We Don't Know How To Build Democracy |journal = Los Angeles Times |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://cddrl.stanford.edu/news/krasner_opinion_piece_in_la_times_asserts_we_dont_know_how_to_build_democracy_20031117/ }}* *{{cite journal |first =Chappell |last = Lawson |authorlink = |coauthors =Strom C. Tucker |year =2003 |month = |title =Democracy? In Iraq? |journal =Hoover Digest |volume =3 |issue =3 |pages = |id = |url =http://www.hooverdigest.org/033/lawson.html }} ''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.'' * {{cite book |last =Lowenthal |first =Abraham F. |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =March 1, 1991 |title =Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America |publisher =The Johns Hopkins University Press |location = |id =ISBN 0-8018-4132-1 }} *{{cite journal |first =James |last =Meernik |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =1996 |month = |title =United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy |journal =Journal of Peace Research |volume =33 |issue =4 |pages =391–402 |id = |url =http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433(199611)33%3A4%3C391%3AUSMIAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A |doi =10.1177/0022343396033004002 }} *{{cite journal |first =Samia Amin |last =Pei |authorlink = |coauthors =Seth Garz |year =2004 |month =March 17 |title =Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course |journal =International Herald Tribune |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1479 }} ''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.'' *{{cite book |last =Peceny |first =Mark |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =1999 |title =Democracy at the Point of Bayonets |publisher =University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press |location = |id =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: {{cite journal |first =Michael |last =Shifter |authorlink = |coauthors = |year =2001 |month =Winter |title =Democracy at the Point of Bayonets |journal =Latin American Politics and Society |volume =43 |issue = |pages =150 |id = |url =http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200101/ai_n8943833 |doi =10.2307/3177036 }} *{{cite book |last =Smith |first = Tony |authorlink = |coauthors = Richard C. Leone |year = 1995 |title = America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century |publisher = Princeton University Press |location = |id =ISBN 0-691-04466-X }} *{{cite journal |first =John A. |last =Tures |authorlink = |coauthors = |year = |month = |title =Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations |journal = Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url = http://diplomacy.shu.edu/journal/new/pdf/VolVINo1/09_Tures.pdf }}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.'' *{{cite journal |first =John A. |last =Tures |authorlink = |coauthors = |year = |month = |title =To Protect Democracy (Not Practice It): Explanations of Dyadic Democratic Intervention (DDI) The Use of Liberal Ends to Justify Illiberal Means |journal =OJPCR: The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution |volume = |issue = |pages = |id = |url =http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/5_1tures.htm }} * Matthew J. Morgan [http://www.amazon.com/American-Military-after-11-Society/dp/023060384X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206340203&sr=8-1 "The American Military after 9/11: Society, State, and Empire" 2008] {{United States policy}} {{US Foreign Doctrine}} {{United States topics}} [[Category:United States federal policy]] [[Category:Foreign relations by country|United States]] [[Category:Foreign relations of the United States| ]] [[Category:United States law]] [[Category:Treaties]] [[de:Außenpolitik der Vereinigten Staaten]] [[es:Política exterior de los Estados Unidos]] [[fa:سیاست خارجی ایالات متحده آمریکا]] [[fr:Politique étrangère des États-Unis d'Amérique]] [[ru:Внешняя политика США]] [[fi:Yhdysvaltain ulkopolitiikka]]