Shy_&_Humble!

[Type the company address] 2012 The Cold Ward and U.S. Diplomacy President Ronald Reagan Valerie Kendricks POL 300 – International Problems Professor Lorna Maloney 8/31/12 Revised [Type the company name] [Type the company address] 2012 The Cold Ward and U.S. Diplomacy President Ronald Reagan Valerie Kendricks POL 300 – International Problems Professor Lorna Maloney 8/31/12 Revised [Type the company name] The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy #1 For instance the situation that ultimately required U.S. diplomatic effort while President Ronald Reagan resided in office was the fall of the Soviet Union. Ultimately for so many years we had seen the USSR as a threat and moreover considered it as a permanent menace. President Reagan saw the USSR sponsored “wars of national liberation” in El Salvador, Angola, Ethiopia and Cambodia. (Plot or Serendipity, 2000) Regrettably the President saw a revolt against Communist rule as a result being shoved out of Afghanistan while the stirrings of democracy extinguished in Poland. President Reagan wanted the tide of Soviet excursions to a haul and suddenly setback. In the beginning of his presidency Reagan had a vision of things inside the armor of the Soviet Union especially the economy. In the speech on March 8, 1983 Reagan branded the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and he lambasted those who would place the United States in a position of military or moral inferiority by supporting a freeze in both sides of nuclear arsenals. (Walker, Hunt, 2011) Meanwhile when President Reagan came to power in 1981 he reinstated diplomacy in the region. To illustrate the point U.S. seized an opening of resolution to civil war which linked U.S. support implementing a UN resolution on neighboring Namibia ironically withdrawing Cuban forces from Angola. The Untied States withdrew the South Africans from Namibia otherwise preventing a Soviet Cuban proxy’s government (the MPLA) from gaining power in Angola. For this reason the linkage didn’t work between the two because both of them were opposed to each other so the fighting went on. When President Reagan’s was reelection in November, 1984 the The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy MPLA finally accepted the linkage of the two issues until the repeal of the Clark Amendment prohibiting aid to UNITA. (Plot or Serendipity, 2000) #2 In my opinion the Reagan Doctrine was a strategy that was formed and shaped together by the United States under his administration to go against the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. Ronald Reagan policies really were a buildup from the pervious President Jimmy Carter. The doctrine in other words was a center piece of United States foreign policy up through the end of the Cold War in 1991. Presently under this particular document the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas. Furthermore the doctrine actually resisted movements in an effort to “roll back” Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America. This doctrine was created to make Soviet recognized in near regions as part of the administrations over all of the Cold War strategy. By the same token the Reagan Doctrine followed in the tradition of U.S. presidents developing foreign policy doctrines that were designed to reflect the challenges facing international relations of the times. The practice began with the Monroe Doctrine of President James Monroe in 1823, and then continued with the Roosevelt Corollary, sometimes called the Roosevelt Doctrine, introduced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Furthermore Reagan established the cold war doctrine of Soviet expansionism due to the critical change in the U.S. foreign policy toward world communism. (Carpenter, 1986) The Reagan Doctrine first and foremost promises to become a program with far reaching foreign policy implications. For this reason any of the U.S. president’s doctrine will define the foreign The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy policies on global challenges of their administrations. Incidentally there are some questions that need to be asked before the U.S. government decides to encourage and endorse anti-communist insurgent movements. * All things considered are the dynamics of each revolutionary situation radically different' * In any case would the U.S. support essentially counteract existing intervention by the Soviet' * Ironically is the administration correct in its perception that the various insurgencies are animated by democratic and anti-Soviet values' * On the other hand is supporting anti-communist insurgencies in the Third World essential to American security' (Carpenter, 1986) Regrettably these questions can be answered in a different way, however; it depends on which country that a person is in. Actually the Reagan Doctrine was credited for a lot of things even though some critics argue that the foreign policy was not a complete success. For this reason others argue that the Reagan Doctrine was too far-reaching, therefore; the resources spent on supporting the overthrown of these governments outweighed the benefits gained. Ultimately but who’s to say what’s right or wrong' #3 Paradoxically the effects these diplomatic efforts had for the U.S. and other countries were beyond pretty. The global balance of power has transitioned from a bipolar equilibrium to a messier arrangement shifting US priorities from arms cuts to nonproliferation. (Walker, Hunt, 2011) Nuclear weapon in numbers is projected to double in South Asia in 10 years, however; the The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy U.S. leadership in any case will be more vital than ever to building unity among nations against an overreliance on nuclear deterrence. In my opinion a deepened U.S commitment to disarmament to control treaties actually would strengthen the international system of laws, norms, and an institution that currently moderates nuclear risks. In the meantime a knee jerk opposition to diplomatic achievements runs counter to Reagan’s record on arms control. Meanwhile economic problems in the Soviet Union were a primary spur for Reykjavik. As a matter of fact current US fiscal pressures made military cuts inescapable. Another problem is repairing the federal budget thus improving the prospects of U.S. nonproliferation initiatives. At the same time the Reagan strong armed King Fahd of Saudi Arabia went into providing funds to the right wing Contras in Nicaragua by illegally selling weapons to Iran leading to other things. (Cole, 2012) Next the Arab volunteers to coalesce into Al Qaeda. Later they used the tradecraft absorbed from the CIA who trained Afghan colleagues to regrettably stage operations in the Middle East against U.S. allies finally carrying out the 9/11 attacks. As a matter of fact the use of mercenaries and black units by the U.S. government that undermines discipline lawfulness, and a strong and consistent chain of command was the problem. No doubt Reagan’s shadow government was a disaster, however; it was nothing compared with Obama’s. As a result of things Americans will have to be prepared for much more blowback to come if we go like this – not to mention further erosion of civil liberties at home, as the shadow government reaches back toward us from abroad. (Cole, 2012) The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy #4 In addition these are the advantage and disadvantage for the Reagan doctrine discussed as follows: Advantages * In the first place it prohibited aid to anti-Marxist fighters in Angola * Moreover through Reagan’s program for the CIA that supports the Nicaraguan contras helped broke post-Viet Nam precedent. * Then it sets a doctrinal foundation for such support that is by declaring equally worthy all armed resistance to Communism whether foreign or indigenously imposed. Disadvantages * First the problem is the idea of sovereignty is sacred, therefore; how can one justify violate the sovereignty of other countries by helping overthrown the legitimate government' * Next if a revolution is both popular as well as objection it will be hard to see the moral objection to extending it support. * Finally the doctrine can’t completely backup its support that it for democratic rebels is self defense and sanctioned by international law. (Krauthammer, 1985) The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy In conclusion the Reagan Doctrines in my opinion has advantages as well as disadvantages. Furthermore it’s representing a step toward the right direction of restoration. I think that if done at the right time and place many world problems can be headed off before they become a threat to peace and stability. #1 Cold War tensions tremendously increased in the early 1980’s. The friction resulted from the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan then continued from American fear of Soviet. After that Cuban influence circled around the Middle East, Southeast, Asia, Africa, and Central America. Ultimately U.S. President Ronald Reagan and his Administration adopted a policy trying to get an agreement for the consideration of Soviet expansion. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union military power led the United States to increase its defense budget. Next according to observers U.S. defense ironically produced dangerous nuclear arms race, however; in 1980’s things back fired with a reduction in U.S. tensions. Afterward in 1987 President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev presumably signed a treaty to get rid of ground-launched nuclear missiles. As a matter of fact the treaty went into effect in 1988 when the U.S.S.R. withdrew its troops from Afghanistan. In the mean time during the late 1980’s the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe lower its customary military forces. Finally Gorbachev encouraged more democracy and freedom of expression at the same him he did similar actions in Eastern Europe. #2 In my opinion I think that the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan nevertheless is on shaky grounds. Meanwhile on May 2, 2012, President Barack Obama and The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America, a 10-year strategic partnership agreement (SPA) that demonstrates the United States enduring commitment to strengthen Afghanistan’s sovereignty, stability, and prosperity and continue cooperation to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates. (U.S. Relations With Afghanistan, 2012) As opposed to the agreement being signed people are still being killed in Pakistan. In other words the United States is saying one thing while doing another. In the mean time the United States has made a long-term commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild itself after disaster of the war. In return Afghanistan has signed a Trade and Investment Framework agreement with the United States. (U.S. Relations With Afghanistan, 2012) After all of this went on ironically a barrage of missiles fired by U.S. killed at least 18 people in northwest Pakistan on Friday August 24, 2012. Strangely enough sources state that the drone strikes hit militant compounds and vehicles in North Waziristan a area that’s affiliated with Afghan Taliban which targets U.S. NATO and pocket of Al Qaeda fighters along with other militant groups (U.S. Drone strikes, 2012) In spite of the United States and Afghanistan signing the agreement; seems clearly to me that trouble still exits. #3 First and foremost I think that the relationship between the United States and China is still not all up to par. The United States moreover seeks to build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China by expanding areas of cooperation. Also the United States is helping by addressing areas of disagreement such as human rights. Moreover the United States seeks to fully integrate China into the global, rules-based economic and trading system The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy while seeking to expand United States exporters and investors access to the Chinese market. (U.S. Relations With China, 2012) According to exports China is in the midst of a presumably economic drought as Western demand for its goods stalls. Furthermore China’s trade outlook is worsening, therefore; with its rate of investment from foreign businesses declining. On the other hand the United States is blaming China for stealing there technology, manipulating the global currency market at the same time while taking unfair advantage of free trade. All things considered the United States is the number one foreign buyer of Chinese products in return China gets a safe place to keep its money. In addition China has open access to the world’s largest single market for its exports. Consequently China needs the United States and we need them just as well. #4 These are the contrast and compare of the United States and China’s * For instance the Chinese looks more at the group collective than at individualism. * On the other hand America has become known for its push of Individualism which has been a source of conflict with other cultures that look collectively. * Most businesses in China are family businesses which are owned and managed by the family, however; the head usually in the firm only has the power to make decisions. * Moreover in United States businesses typically uses the concept machine as the basic building block for the firm, for instance a board of directors watches the machine on behalf of the owner. The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy * Next China businessmen tend to be conservative otherwise often keeping to the markets and products they know best. * On the other hand United States businessmen tend to be pioneering, therefore; willing to venture into new markets. * Next China emphasizes personal relationship with business partners on individual basis while relying on trust when doing business. * Finally the United States emphasizes relationship with business partners on the basis of institutions, therefore; relying on formal contracts and legal protection. #5 China, U.S. as well as other countries during the past 20 years relations experienced many twists and turns although a lot of fantastic achievements were made. On the other hand the United States and China relations have changed dramatically since the past 20 years. Presumably the most noticeable change is that the two countries have established a series of mechanisms for bilateral negotiations and dialogues when dealing with issues. As a matter of fact the United States along with other countries has established some fundamental regulations for getting along with each other. Ultimately the 20 years history of United States and other countries relations is a new path for a great traditional power. Moreover the future development of the United States with other countries relations will still rely on strengthening, widening and expanding the road. #6 One source is the rise of Independent Kurdistan. A few years ago in Iraqi Kurdistan tribal division created extremely serious and debilitating obstacles to Kurdish political power. The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy (Garfinkle, 2012) The reason for the change is Kurds are less divided today than they have been historically. The United States used to be against Kurdish independence, however; the United States had a change of heart. Since Iraq is no longer a unitary state the Turks seem really reconcilable to the idea of an independent Kurdish state. The second source is the Climate change based on humans. Presumably our lives are connected to the climate. Moreover human activities do release amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Ultimately the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years. (Begos, 2012) In the mean the time government officials cited that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch form dirtier burning coal. In fact the United States working with other countries is what made it happen. The third source is the U.S. Trade Deficit. Incidentally the growth in the trade deficit over the past two decades has destroyed millions of high-wage, high skilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Moreover the U.S. has lost nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs since March of 1998 due to the impact of the rising trade deficit. (Scott, 2002) U.S. Corporation continues to play a dominant role in world production and trade by furthering investing and moving production abroad. The final source is defining the threat against terrorists attack. The U.S. government is joined by other governments around the world in working through intelligence, law enforcement, military, financial, and diplomatic channels to identify, disrupt, capture, or kill individual terrorists. (What to do, 2012) Presumably the U.S. government is working on identifying and prioritizing each actual or potential terrorist acts/attacks. The United States as well as other The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy countries are working together to fight this battle of terrorism, therefore; consider the battle already won. The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy References The Regan Doctrine, By: Krauthammer, Charles, 4/1/1985, Vol. 125 Issue 13, p54 4p The Age of American Shadow Power, By: Cole, Juan, 4/30/2012, Vol. 294 Issue 18, p25-27, 3p The legacy of Reykjavik and the future of nuclear disarmament, By: Walker, Paul F.; Hunt, Jonathan R. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nov2011, Vol. 67 Issue 6, p63-72. 10p. DOl: 10.1177/0096340211426507 Carpenter, Ted Galen, (June 24, 1986) U.S. Aid to Anti-Comunist RebelsL The “Regan Doctrine” and Its Pitfalls Ronald Reagan And The Fall Of The Soviet Union (8/3/2012) “Plot Or Serendipity” Retrieved August 3, 2012 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/BMH.htm Los Angeles Times (8/25/12) “U.S. Drone Strikes Kill 18 In Pakistan Near Afghanistan Border” Retrieved August 25, 2012 from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/24/world/la-fg-pakistan-drone-stri U.S. Department of State (6/19/2012) “U.S. Relations With Afghanistan” Retrieved August 25, 2012 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy U.S. Department of State (6/5/2012) “U.S. Relations With China” Retrieved August 25, 2012 from http://www.state.gov.r.pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm Garfinkle, Adam, (August 25, 2012) The American Interest, The Rise of Independent Kurdistan' Begos, Kevin, (August 16, 2012) Komo News.com, CO2 emissions in U.S. drop to 20-year low Scott, Robert E., (March 4, 2002) The U.S Trade Deficit, Are We Trading Away Our Future' National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, (8/26/12) “What To Do' A Global Strategy” Retrieved August 26, 2012 from http://www.9-11 commission.gov/report/911 Report_Ch12.htm