Foreign policy of the United States

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

The foreign policy of the United States is the way in which it interacts with foreign nations and sets standards of interaction for its organizations, corporations and individual citizens.

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, including all the Bureaus and Offices in the United States Department of State,[1] as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."[2] In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation."[3] U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid have been the subject of much debate, praise and criticism, both domestically and abroad.

Powers of the President and Congress

The U.S. Constitution gives much of the foreign policy decision-making to the presidency, but the Senate has a role in ratifying treaties, and the Supreme Court interprets treaties when cases are presented to it.

Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President of the United States negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces; however only Congress has authority to declare war, and the civilian and military budget is written by the Congress. 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 ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress also has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.[4]

Historical overview

The Jay Treaty of 1795 aligned the U.S. more with Britain and less with France, leading to political polarization at home

The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemony during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century.[5] Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations.[6]

Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address; these included among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations. These policies became the basis of the Federalist Party in the 1790s. But the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored France in the 1790s, declaring the War of 1812 on Britain. After the 1778 alliance with France, the U.S. did not sign another permanent treaty until the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by Presidential 'doctrines', named for them. Initially these were uncommon events, but since WWII, these have been made by most presidents.

In general, the United States followed an isolationist foreign policy until attacks against U.S. shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801.[7]

Despite occasional entanglements with European Powers such as the War of 1812 and the 1898 Spanish–American War, U.S. foreign policy was marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade and scope during the 19th century, and it maintained its policy of avoiding wars with and between European powers. Concerning its domestic borders, the 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled the nation's geographical area; Spain ceded the territory of Florida in 1819; annexation brought Texas in 1845; a war with Mexico in 1848 added California, Arizona and New Mexico. The U.S. bought Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, and it annexed the Republic of Hawaii in 1898. Victory over Spain in 1898 brought the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, as well as oversight of Cuba. The short experiment in imperialism ended by 1908, as the U.S. turned its attention to the Panama Canal and the stabilization of regions to its south, including Mexico.

20th century

World War I

The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which the United States, along with allied powers, defeated its enemies and increased its international reputation. President Wilson's Fourteen Points was developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism so as to end any wars. It became the basis of the German Armistice (really a surrender) and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the League of Nations, which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States followed an independent course, and succeeded in a program of naval disarmament, and refunding the German economy. New York became the financial capital of the world, but the downside was that the Wall Street Crash of 1929 hurled the entire world into the Great Depression. American trade policy relied on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s.

World War II

The United States adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but then President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved toward strong support of the Allies in their wars against Germany and Japan. As a result of intense internal debate, the national policy was one of becoming the Arsenal of Democracy, that is financing and equipping the Allied armies without sending American combat soldiers. Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which ought to be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from want and fear. Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-war world among potential allies at the Atlantic Conference; specific points were included to correct earlier failures, which became a step toward the United Nations. American policy was to threaten Japan, to force it out of China, and to prevent its attacking the Soviet Union. However, Japan reacted by an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of the loans given to allies in World War I, the United States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000. Working closely with Winston Churchill of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his forces into the Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally into Europe starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans. The American economy roared forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes, ships, tanks, munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. Much of the American war effort went to strategic bombers, which flattened the cities of Japan and Germany.

Cold War

Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong meets with U.S. President Richard Nixon, 1972

After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant non-colonial economic power with broad influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. Almost immediately however, the world witnessed division into broad two camps during the Cold War; one side was led by the U.S., and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century, and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the two superpowers. A policy of containment was adopted to limit Soviet expansion, and a series of proxy wars were fought with mixed results. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation and other former Soviet states. With these changes to forty-five years of established diplomacy and military confrontation, new challenges confronted U.S. policymakers. American foreign policy is characterized by the protection of its national interests.

21st century

In the 21st century, U.S. influence remains strong but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of economic output compared to rising nations such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and the newly consolidated European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the specter of nuclear terrorism. Foreign policy analysts Hachigian and Sutphen in their book The Next American Century suggest all six powers have similar vested interests in stability and terrorism prevention and trade; if they can find common ground, then the next decades may be marked by peaceful growth and prosperity.[8]


In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:

  • Executive agreements
    • Congressional-executive agreements are made by the president and Congress. A majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation after it is signed by the president. The constitution does not expressly state that these agreements are allowed, and constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they are unconstitutional.[9] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their validity.[citation needed]
    • Sole executive agreements are made by the president alone.
  • Treaties are formal written agreements specified by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution. The president makes a treaty with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. For example, President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was rejected by the U.S. Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently made separate agreements with different nations. While most international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty, the U.S. sense of the term is more restricted. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.

International law in most nations considers all three of the above agreements as treaties. In most nations, treaty laws supersede domestic law. So if there is a conflict between a treaty obligation and a domestic law, then the treaty usually prevails.[citation needed]

In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as distinct. Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterwards. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if this is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including the 1900 Supreme Court decision in Paquete Habana, a late 1950s decision in Reid v. Covert, and a lower court ruling in 1986 in Garcia-Mir v. Meese. Further, the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to rule a treaty as void by declaring it "unconstitutional", although as of 2011, it has never exercised this power.[citation needed]

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Generally when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, because of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says, in effect, that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, then the U.S. legally can't abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.



A map of allies of the United States
  NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions
  Signatories of Partnership for Peace with NATO

The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 28-nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe, including the nation with NATO's second largest military, the United Kingdom. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. NATO is restricted to within the North American and European areas. In 1989, the United States also granted five nations the major non-NATO ally status (MNNA); this number was increased in the late 1990s and following the September 11 attacks; it currently includes 28 nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.


United Kingdom

United States foreign policy affirms its alliance with the United Kingdom as its most important[citation needed] bilateral relationship in the world, evidenced by aligned political affairs between the White House and 10 Downing Street, as well as joint military operations carried out between the two nations. While both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain close relationships with many other nations around the world, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing with each other has been described as "unparalleled" among major powers throughout the 20th and early 21st century.[10]

The United States and Britain share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion.[11]


Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) and President Obama (left) meet in Ottawa in February 2009

The bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States is of notable importance to both countries. About 75–85% of Canadian trade is with the United States, and Canada is the United States' largest trading partner and chief supplier of oil. While there are disputed issues between the two nations, relations are close and the two countries share the "world's longest undefended border."[12] The border was demilitarized after the War of 1812 and, apart from minor raids[clarification needed], has remained peaceful. Military collaboration began during World War II and continued throughout the Cold War on both a bilateral basis and a multilateral relationship through NATO. A high volume of trade and migration between the United States and Canada since the 1850s has generated closer ties, despite continued Canadian fears of being culturally overwhelmed by its neighbor, which is nine times larger in terms of population and eleven times larger in terms of economy.[13][14] The two economies have increasingly merged since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, which also includes Mexico.


The United States shares a unique and often complex relationship with Mexico. A history of armed conflict goes back to the Texas Revolution in the 1830s, the Mexican–American War in the 1840s, and an American invasion in the 1910s. Important treaties include the Gadsden Purchase, and multilaterally with Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The central issue in recent years has been illegal immigration, followed by illegal gun sales (from the U.S.), drug smuggling (to the U.S.) and escalating drug cartel violence just south of the U.S.-Mexico border.[15][16]


Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd talks with United States President Barack Obama in Washington

The United States' relationship with Australia is a very close one, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that "America doesn't have a better friend in the world than Australia".[17] The relationship is formalized by the ANZUS treaty and the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement. The two countries have a shared history, both have previously been British Colonies and many Americans flocked to the Australian goldfields in the 19th century. At a strategic level, the relationship really came to prominence in World War II, when the two nations worked extremely closely in the Pacific War against Japan, with General Douglas MacArthur undertaking his role as Supreme Allied Commander based in Australia, effectively having Australian troops and resources under his command. During this period, the cultural interaction between Australia and the U.S. were elevated to a higher level as over 1 million U.S. military personnel moved through Australia during the course of the war. The relationship continued to evolve throughout the second half of the 20th Century, and today now involves strong relationships at the executive and mid levels of government and the military, leading Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kurt M. Campbell to declare that "in the last ten years, [Australia] has ascended to one of the closest one or two allies [of the U.S.] on the planet".[18]

Middle East

The United States has many important allies in the Greater Middle East region. These allies are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. Israel and Egypt are leading recipients of United States foreign aid, receiving $2.775 billion[19] and 1.75 billion[20] in 2010. Turkey is an ally of the United States through its membership in NATO, while all of the other countries except Saudi Arabia and Qatar are major non-NATO allies.

The United States toppled the government of Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[21] Turkey is host to approximately 90 B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base.[22] Other allies include Qatar, where 3,500 U.S. troops are based,[23] and Bahrain, where the United States Navy maintains NSA Bahrain, home of NAVCENT and the Fifth Fleet.


The relationship began in the 1850s as the U.S. was a major factor in forcing Japan to resume contacts with the outer world beyond a very restricted role. In the late 19th century the Japanese sent many delegations to Europe, and some to the U.S., to discover and copy the latest technology and thereby modernize Japan very rapidly and allow it to build its own empire. There was some friction over control of Hawaii and the Philippines, but Japan stood aside as the U.S. annexed those lands in 1898. Likewise the U.S. did not object when Japan took control of Korea. The two nations cooperated with the European powers in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, but the U.S. was increasingly troubled about Japan's denial of the Open Door Policy that would ensure that all nations could do business with China on an equal basis.[24]

President Theodore Roosevelt admired Japan's strength as it defeated a major European power, Russia. He brokered an end to the war between Russia and Japan in 1905–6. Anti-Japanese sentiment (especially on the West Coast) soured relations in the 1907–24 era. In the 1930s the U.S. protested vehemently against Japan's seizure of Manchuria (1931), its war against China (1937–45), and its seizure of Indochina (Vietnam) 1940–41. American sympathies were with China and Japan rejected increasingly angry American demands that Japan pull out of China. The two nations fought an all-out war 1941–45; the U.S. won a total victory, with heavy bombing (including two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) that devastated Japan's 50 largest industrial cities. The American army under Douglas MacArthur occupied and ruled Japan, 1945–51, with the successful goal of sponsoring a peaceful, prosperous and democratic nation.[25]

In 1951, the U.S. and Japan signed Treaty of San Francisco and Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan, subsequently revised as Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan in 1960, relations since then have been excellent. The United States considers Japan to be one of its closest allies, and it is both a Major Non-NATO ally and NATO contact country. The United States has several military bases in Japan including Yokosuka, which harbors the U.S. 7th Fleet. The JSDF, or Japanese Self Defense Force, cross train with the U.S. Military, often providing auxiliary security and conducting war games. When the U.S.President Barack Obama met with Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso in 2009, he said the relationship with Japan as the "cornerstone of security in East Asia".[26] After the several years of critical moment during Japan's Democratic Party administration, President Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reconfirmed the importance of its alliance and currently the U.S. and Japan negotiating to participate Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership.[27][28]

South Korea

South Korea–United States relations have been most extensive since 1945, when the United States helped establish capitalism in South Korea and led the UN-sponsored Korean War against North Korea and China (1950–1953).[29] Stimulated by heavy American aid[by whom?], South Korea's rapid economic growth, democratization and modernization greatly reduced its U.S. dependency. Large numbers of U.S. forces remain in Korea. At the 2009 G-20 London summit, U.S. President Barack Obama called South Korea "one of America's closest allies and greatest friends." [30]


President Barack Obama addresses the opening session of the first U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

American relations with the People's Republic of China are quite strong, yet complex. A great amount of trade between the two countries necessitates positive political relations, although occasional disagreements over tariffs, currency exchange rates and the Political status of Taiwan do occur. Nevertheless, the United States and China have an extremely extensive partnership. The U.S. criticizes China on human rights issues and in recent years, China has criticized the United States on human rights in return.


Taiwan (officially the Republic of China), does not have official diplomatic relations with America and no longer receives diplomatic recognition from the State Department of the United States, but it conducts unofficial diplomatic relations through its de facto embassy, commonly known as the "American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)", and is considered to be a strong Asian ally and supporter of the United States.[31]


Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an important partner for United States in both economic and geostrategic aspects. ASEAN's geostrategic importance stems from many factors, including: the strategic location of member countries, the large shares of global trade that pass through regional waters, and the alliances and partnerships which the United States shares with ASEAN member states. In July 2009, the United States signed ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, which establishes guiding principles intended to build confidence among its signatories with the aim of maintaining regional peace and stability.[32] Trade flows are robust and increasing between America and the ASEAN region.


As the largest ASEAN member, Indonesia has played an active and prominent role in developing the organization.[33] For United States, Indonesia is important for dealing with certain issues; such as terrorism,[34] democracy, and how United States project its relations with Islamic world, since Indonesia has the world's largest Islamic population, and one that honors and respects religious diversity.[35] The U.S. eyes Indonesia as a potential strategic ally in Southeast Asia.[36] During his stately visit to Indonesia, U.S. President Barack Obama has held up Indonesia as an example of how a developing nation can embrace democracy and diversity.[37][38]


Despite increasingly strained relations under the Mahathir Mohamad government, ties have been thawed under Najib Razak's administration. Economic ties are particularly robust, with the United States being Malaysia's largest trading partner and Malaysia is the tenth-largest trading partner of the U.S. Annual two-way trade amounts to $49 billion. The United States and Malaysia launched negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) in June 2006.

The United States and Malaysia enjoy strong security cooperation. Malaysia hosts the Southeast Asia Regional Center for Counterterrorism (SEARCCT), where over 2000 officials from various countries have received training. The United States is among the foreign countries that has collaborated with the center in conducting capacity building programmes. The U.S. and Malaysia share a strong military-to-military relationship with numerous exchanges, training, joint exercises, and visits.


Bilateral ties have generally been strained but are slowly improving. The United States has placed broad sanctions on Burma because of the military crackdown in 1988 and the military regime's refusal to honour the election results of the 1990 People's Assembly election. Similarly, the European Union has placed embargoes on Burma, including an arms embargo, cessation of trade preferences, and suspension of all aid with the exception of humanitarian aid.[39]

US and European government sanctions against the military government, alongside boycotts and other types direct pressure on corporations by western supporters of the Burmese democracy movement, have resulted in the withdrawal from Burma of most U.S. and many European companies. However, several Western companies remain due to loopholes in the sanctions.[40] Asian corporations have generally remained willing to continue investing in Myanmar and to initiate new investments, particularly in natural resource extraction.

Ongoing reforms have improved relations between Burma and the United States.


The United States ruled the Philippines from 1898 to 1946. The Spanish government ceded the Philippines to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish–American War. The United States finally recognized Philippine independence on July 4, 1946 in the Treaty of Manila.[41] July 4 was observed in the Philippines as Independence Day until August 4, 1964 when, upon the advice of historians and the urging of nationalists, President Diosdado Macapagal signed into law Republic Act No. 4166 designating June 12 as the country's Independence Day.[42] Since 2003 the U.S. has designated the Philippines as a Major Non-NATO Ally.


Thailand and the U.S. are both former Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) members, being close partners throughout the Cold War, and are still close allies. Since 2003, the U.S. has designated Thailand as a Major Non-NATO Ally.


United States involved in Vietnam War in 1955 to 1975. In 1995, President Bill Clinton announced the formal normalization of diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Today, the U.S. eyes Vietnam as a potential strategic ally in Southeast Asia.[36]

Eastern Europe

President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk of Ukraine at the conclusion of their bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, March 12, 2014.
U.S. Marines greet local Albanian boys in Kosovo on June 25, 1999

American relations with Eastern Europe are influenced by the legacy of the Cold War. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, former Communist-bloc states in Europe have gradually transitioned to democracy and capitalism. Many have also joined the European Union and NATO, strengthening economic ties with the broader Western world and gaining the military protection of the United States via the North Atlantic Treaty.


The UN Security Council divided on the question of Kosovo's declaration of independence. Kosovo declared its independence on February 17, 2008, whilst Serbia objected that Kosovo is part of its territory. Of the five members with veto power in the UN Security Council, the USA, UK, and France recognized the declaration of independence, and China has expressed concern, while Russia considers it illegal. "In its declaration of independence, Kosovo committed itself to the highest standards of democracy, including freedom and tolerance and justice for citizens of all ethnic backgrounds", President George W Bush said on February 19, 2008.[43][44]

Hub and spoke vs multilateral

While America's relationships with Europe have tended to be in terms of multilateral frameworks, such as NATO, America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a "hub and spoke" model using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States and do not collaborate with each other.[45] On May 30, 2009, at the Shangri-La Dialogue Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc arrangements in the area.[46] However, in 2011 Gates said that the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation," for building multilateral cooperation.[47]


Persian Gulf

A U.S. soldier stands guard duty near a burning oil well in the Rumaila oil field, Iraq, April 2003

As of 2014, the U.S. currently produces about 66% of the oil that it consumes.[48] While its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for increased energy independence from oil exporting countries such as OPEC.[49] Former U.S. President George W. Bush identified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security concern".[50]

Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf.[51][52] Despite its distance, 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 Allied armies. Many U.S. 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.[53]

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 interests" in the Persian Gulf region.[54] 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.[55] Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.[56][57][58][59]


Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.[60]


In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28.4% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31.4%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.[61]

Foreign aid

Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget, which is $49 billion in all for 2014.[62] Aid is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (for example, contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund).[63]

In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor ($23 billion in 2014).[62] The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid. In addition many private agencies, churches and philanthropies provide aid.

Although the United States is the largest donor in absolute dollar terms, it is actually ranked 19 out of 27 countries on the Commitment to Development Index. The CDI ranks the 27 richest donor countries on their policies that affect the developing world. In the aid component the United States is penalized for low net aid volume as a share of the economy, a large share of tied or partially tied aid, and a large share of aid given to less poor and relatively undemocratic governments.

Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting foreign aid much more than conservatives do.[64]


The United States has fought wars and intervened militarily on many occasions. See, Timeline of United States military operations. The U.S. also operates a vast network of military bases around the world. See, List of United States military bases.

In recent years, the U.S. has used its military superiority as sole superpower to lead a number of wars, including, most recently, the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as part of its global "War on Terror."


U.S. Soldiers unload humanitarian aid for distribution to the town of Rajan Kala, Afghanistan, December 2009

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.[65] Since 9/11, Pakistan has received approximately $11.5 billion in direct military aid.[66]

As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.[67]

Estimated U.S. foreign military financing and aid by recipient for 2010:

Recipient Military aid (USD Billions)
 Iraq 6.50
 Afghanistan 5.60[68]
 Israel 2.75[19]
 Egypt 1.75[20]
 Pakistan 1.60[69]
 Colombia .834[70]
 Jordan .300[71]
 Palestinian Authority .100[20]
 Yemen .070

Missile defense

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983[72] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles,[73] later dubbed "Star Wars".[74] The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today.[75]

In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system[76] (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan).[77] According to press reports the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree)[78] to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.[79][80]

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.[81][82] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.[83] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[84]

On August 14, 2008, The United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.[85] "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy, said.[76][86]

Exporting democracy

In United States history, critics have charged that presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad.[87][88] Critics have also charged that the U.S. helped local militaries overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances. Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations.[89] 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."[90][91] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[89] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[92]

Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy

Professor Paul W. Drake argued that the U.S. first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argued that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictatorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." The study suggested that efforts to promote democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and can not be forcibly imposed. There was disagreement about what constituted democracy; Drake suggested American leaders sometimes defined democracy in a narrow sense of a nation having elections; Drake suggested a broader understanding was needed. Further, there was disagreement about what constituted a "rebellion"; Drake saw a pattern in which the U.S. State Department disapproved of any type of rebellion, even so-called "revolutions", and in some instances rebellions against dictatorships.[93] Historian Walter LaFeber stated, "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."[94]

Mesquita and Downs evaluated 35 U.S. interventions from 1945 to 2004 and concluded that in only one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within ten years following the intervention.[95] Samia Amin Pei argued that nation building in developed countries usually unravelled four to six years after American intervention ended. Pei, based on study of a database on worldwide democracies called Polity, agreed with Mesquita and Downs that U.S. intervention efforts usually don't produce real democracies, and that most cases result in greater authoritarianism after ten years.[96]

Professor Joshua Muravchik argued U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after World War II, but America's failure to encourage democracy in the third world "prove ... that U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."[97][98] The success of democracy in former Axis countries such as Italy were seen as a result of high national per-capita income, although U.S. protection was seen as a key to stabilization and important for encouraging the transition to democracy. Steven Krasner agreed that there was a link between wealth and democracy; when per-capita incomes of $6,000 were achieved in a democracy, there was little chance of that country ever reverting to an autocracy, according to an analysis of his research in the Los Angeles Times.[93]

Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results

Tures examined 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.[89] However this does not take into account the direction the country would have gone with no U.S. intervention.

Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy

Hermann and Kegley found that American military interventions designed to protect or promote democracy increased freedom in those countries.[92] Peceny argued 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."[99] Therefore, Peceny 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.[100]

Peceny stated that the United States attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 20th-century military interventions.[101] Peceny argued that proliberal policies after military intervention had a positive impact on democracy.[102]

Global opinion

A global survey done by Pewglobal indicated that at (as of 2014) least 33 surveyed countries have a positive view (50% or above) of the United States. With the top ten most positive countries being Philippines (92%), Israel (84%), South Korea (82%), Kenya (80%), El Salvador (80%), Italy (78%), Ghana (77%), Vietnam (76%), Bangladesh (76%), and Tanzania (75%). While 10 surveyed countries have the most negative view (Below 50%) of the United States. With the countries being Egypt (10%), Jordan (12%), Pakistan (14%), Turkey (19%), Russia (23%), Palestinian Territories (30%), Greece (34%), Argentina (36%), Lebanon (41%), Tunisia (42%). American's own view of the United States was viewed at 84%.[103]

Covert actions

United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to the United States. In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, initiated Operation Ajax against the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.[104]

A year later, in Operation PBSUCCESS, the United States government and the CIA toppled the democratically elected left-wing government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala and installed the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. The United Fruit Company lobbied for Árbenz overthrow as his land reforms jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long civil war which claimed the lives of 200,000 people.[105]

During the massacre of alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia, the U.S. government provided assistance to the Indonesian military that helped facilitate the mass killings.[106][107][108][109][110][111] This included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000 names of suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were subsequently killed in the massacres.[112][113][114][115][116] In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the publication of the State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, which documents the U.S. role in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI.[110][117][118]

In 1970, the CIA worked with coup-plotters in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General René Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election of Salvador Allende. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later. The CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.[119][120]

Human rights

The inclusion of Human Rights in U.S. foreign policy had a controversial start. For one thing, human rights driven foreign policy did not originate in the Executive branch but was instead enforced upon it by Congress, starting in the 1970s.[121] Following the Vietnam War, the feeling that U.S. foreign policy had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by Senator Donald M. Fraser (D, MI), leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, in criticizing Republican Foreign Policy under the Nixon administration. In the early 1970s, Congress concluded the Vietnam War and passed the War Powers Act. As "part of a growing assertiveness by Congress about many aspects of Foreign Policy,"[122] Human Rights concerns became a battleground between the Legislative and the Executive branches in the formulation of foreign policy. David Forsythe points to three specific, early examples of Congress interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:

  1. Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensured assistance through international financial institutions would be limited to countries "other than those whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."[122]
  2. Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."[122]
  3. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1978: "No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."[122]

These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign policy towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and South Africa. The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the Cold War required placing regional security in favor of U.S. interests over any behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive regimes.[121] Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union.[123] John Henry Coatsworth, a historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990.[124][125]

On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries.[126] He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays,[127] joining other western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.[128]

In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, both American citizens, shortly after the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.[129]

War on Drugs

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. 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 that 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,[130] 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 12 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 cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.


Demonstration at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin against the NSA surveillance program PRISM, June 2013

Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel. Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that the U.S. presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad.[87][88] It was also noted that the U.S. overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances. Noam Chomsky, a vociferous critic of U.S. foreign policy, argues that "in both cases the consequences reach to the present" and that Guatemala in particular "remains one of the world's worst horror chambers."[131] Critics also point to declassified records which indicate that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited more than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.[132][133]

The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human rights, such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile,[134] Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay,[135] Efraín Ríos Montt of Guatemala,[136] Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina,[137] and Suharto of Indonesia.[109][113] Critics have also accused the United States of supporting Operation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America.[135][138][139]

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations.[89] Some 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."[90][91] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[89] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[92] A 2013 global poll in 68 countries with 66,000 respondents by Win/Gallup found that the U.S. is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace.[140][141][142]


Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the 'realist' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.[143][144]

Many democracies have voluntary military ties 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.[145][146]

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.[147]

Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[148][149] Media may be biased against the U.S. regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that The 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.[150][151] 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.

Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. 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 U.S. cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War.[144] The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.[152] However, W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler" of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the region's worst tendencies."[153]

Bahraini pro-democracy protesters killed by the U.S.-allied regime, February 2011

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."[154] 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."[155] 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, under President Ronald Reagan, 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.[156] Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world".[157]

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools [158] Examples of these tools are as follows:

  • A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Advancing Freedom and Democracy",[159] issued in compliance with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law).[160]
  • A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." [161]
  • In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards." [162]
  • The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.[163]
  • The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[164]
  • The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan), which is mostly funded by the U.S. Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.

See also


  2. "Bureau of Budget and Planning". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. "About the Committee". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  4. James M. McCormick, American Foreign Policy and Process (2009) ch 7-8
  5. George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (2008)
  6. Richard Russell, "American Diplomatic Realism: A Tradition Practised and Preached by George F. Kennan," Diplomacy and Statecraft, Nov 2000, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp 159–83
  7. Oren, Michael B. (November 3, 2005). "The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  8. Nikolas K. Gvosdev (January 2, 2008). "FDR's Children". National Interest. Archived from the original on August 26, 2010. Retrieved January 13, 2010. Hachigian ... and Sutphen ... recognize that the global balance of power is changing; that despite America's continued predominance, the other pivotal powers "do challenge American dominance and impinge on the freedom of action the U.S. has come to enjoy and expect." Rather than focusing on the negatives, however, they believe that these six powers have the same vested interests: All are dependent on the free flow of goods around the world and all require global stability in order to ensure continued economic growth (and the prosperity it engenders). Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  9. Laurence H. Tribe, "Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation," 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1227 (1995).
  10. James, Wither (March 2006). "An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century". European Security. 15 (1): 47–65. doi:10.1080/09662830600776694. ISSN 0966-2839. |access-date= requires |url= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  11. US Department of State, Background Note on the United Kingdom
  12. John Herd Thompson, and Stephen J. Randall, Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies (4th ed. McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008) is the standard scholarly survey
  13. "5. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". International Monetary Fund. November 9, 2011. Retrieved November 9, 2011. 15,064 billions (figure for 2011) 313 million persons Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  14. "Canada". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved November 5, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  15. Tim Padgett, "Mexico's Calderón Needs to Listen, Not Just Lecture U.S." TIME May 19, 2010 online
  16. Burton Kirkwood, The History of Mexico (2010) pp 97–99, 138-52, 216
  17. Lyndal Curtis for The World Today (March 25, 2009). "Rudd's warm Washington welcome - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Retrieved August 18, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  18. "Q+A: Guyon Espiner interviews Kurt Campbell". Television New Zealand. October 11, 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  19. 19.0 19.1 Congress Approves FY2010 Aid to Israel
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 US aid tied to purchase of arms
  21. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11
  22. "Report: US considers withdrawing nuclear bombs from Turkey". April 3, 2010. Retrieved August 18, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  23. Sciutto, Jim. "U.S. Troops Preparing for War in Qatar - ABC News". Retrieved August 18, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  24. Foster Rhea Dulles, Yankees and Samurai: America's Role in the Emergence of Modern Japan, 1791–1900 (1965)
  25. Walter LaFeber, The Clash: A History of US–Japan Relations (W.W. Norton, 1997)
  26. Kessler, Glenn (February 25, 2009). "Japanese Prime Minister Meets With Obama, Says Economy Complicates North Korea Talks". Washington Post. Retrieved January 24, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  27. Calmes, Jackie (February 22, 2013). "Japan and United States Reaffirm Their Close Ties". New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  28. Joint Statement by the United States and Japan
  29. Jae Ho Chung, Between Ally and Partner: Korea-China Relations and the United States (2008) excerpt and text search
  30. "President Obama Vows Strengthened U.S.-South Korea Ties". Archived from the original on July 4, 2009.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  31. Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, ed., Dangerous Strait: The U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis (2005)
  32. Daniel Seah, "The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia: The Issue of Non-Intervention and its Accession by Australia and the USA," Chinese Journal of international Law and (2012) 11#4 pp 785 - 822 online
  33. See "Editorial: The ASEAN cage Jakarta Post7 July 2011".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  34. U.S.-Indonesia Military Relations in The Anti-Terror War
  35. Indonesia: An Important Focus Point for World Security
  36. 36.0 36.1 "404". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  37. "BBC News - Obama hails Indonesia as example for world". BBC News. November 10, 2010. Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  38. Obama delivers a speech in the University of Indonesia
  39. "The EU's relations with Burma / Myanmar". European Union. Archived from the original on July 25, 2006. Retrieved July 13, 2006. Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  40. The List: Burma's Economic Lifelines. Foreign Policy. October 2007
  41. TREATY OF GENERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. SIGNED AT MANILA, ON 4 JULY 1946 (pdf), United Nations, retrieved December 10, 2007<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  43. Bush Hails Kosovo Independence, U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs
  44. Bush insists Kosovo must be independent and receives hero's welcome in Albania, The Guardian
  45. Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Schott, Jeffrey J. (1994). Western Hemisphere Economic Integration. Peterson Institute. pp. 132–22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  46. John Pike. "Gates Delivers Keynote Address to Open Asia Security Conference". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  47. Shanker, Tom. "Gates Talks of Boosting Asian Security Despite Budget Cuts." New York Times, 1 June 2011.
  49. Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
  50. Bush Leverage With Russia, Iran, China Falls as Oil Prices Rise,
  51. Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia, New York Times
  52. The End of Cheap Oil, National Geographic
  53. James Paul - Global Policy Forum. "Crude Designs:". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  54. The war is about oil but it's not that simple,
  55. The United States Navy and the Persian Gulf
  56. What if the Chinese were to apply the Carter Doctrine?, Haaretz - Israel News
  57. Selling the Carter Doctrine, TIME
  58. Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil, Times Online
  59. Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq, The Guardian
  60. See Energy Information Administration, "Canada" (2009 report)
  62. 62.0 62.1 See "FY 2014 Omnibus – State and Foreign Operations Appropriations" (Jan 2014)
  63. Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy
  64. Stanford University Press. "The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs - Peter Hays Gries". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  65. "U.S. Policy in Colombia | Amnesty International USA". Retrieved August 18, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  66. "The News International: Latest, Breaking, Pakistan, Sports and Video News". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  67. Fox News, 1 November 2004 Analysts Ponder U.S. Basing in Iraq
  68. Afghanistan: US foreign assistance
  69. Aid to Pakistan
  71. Jordan: Background and U.S relations
  72. Federation of American Scientists. Missile Defense Milestones. Accessed March 10, 2006.
  73. Johann Hari: Obama's chance to end the fantasy that is Star Wars, The Independent, November 13, 2008
  74. Historical Documents: Reagan's 'Star Wars' speech, CNN Cold War
  75. "Son of "Star Wars" - How Missile Defense Systems Will Work". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  76. 76.0 76.1 Missile defense backers now cite Russia threat
  77. U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense,
  78. Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech Republic
  79. Europe diary: Missile defence, BBC News
  80. "Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  81. Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield, Telegraph
  82. China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn U.S. missile defense plans, International Herald Tribune
  83. Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence, The Guardian
  84. U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense,
  85. Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal, The New York Times, August 15, 2008
  86. Russia angry over U.S. missile shield, Al Jazeera English, August 15, 2008
  87. 87.0 87.1 Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de (Spring 2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest. 2.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Also see this page.
  88. 88.0 88.1 Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391–402. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  89. 89.0 89.1 89.2 89.3 89.4 Tures, John A. "Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations" (PDF). Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>PDF file.
  90. 90.0 90.1 Lowenthal, Abraham (1991). The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 243–265. Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  91. 91.0 91.1 Peceny, Mark (1999). Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 183. ISBN 0-271-01883-6.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  92. 92.0 92.1 92.2 Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions. 24 (2): 91–114. doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  93. 93.0 93.1 Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1, 4, 5. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "LA" defined multiple times with different content
  94. Lafeber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30964-9.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  95. Factors included limits on executive power, clear rules for the transition of power, universal adult suffrage, and competitive elections.
  96. Pei, Samia Amin (March 17, 2004). "Why Nation-Building Fails in Mid-Course". International Herald Tribune.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  97. Peceny, p. 186.
  98. Muravchik, Joshua (1991). Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press. pp. 91–118. ISBN 0-8447-3734-8.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  99. Przeworski, Adam; Przeworski, Adam; Limongi Neto, Fernando Papaterra; Alvarez, Michael M. (1996). "What Makes Democracy Endure" (– Scholar search). Journal of Democracy. 7 (1): 39–55. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>[dead link]
  100. Peceny, p. 193
  101. Peceny, p. 2
  102. Review: Shifter, Michael; Peceny, Mark (Winter 2001). "Democracy at the Point of Bayonets". Latin American Politics and Society. 43 (4): 150. doi:10.2307/3177036.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  103. "". Pew Research Center. External link in |title= (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  104. "Special Report: Secret History of the CIA in Iran". The New York Times. 2000.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  105. Stephen Schlesinger (3 June 2011). Ghosts of Guatemala's Past. The New York Times. Retrieved 5 July 2014.
  106. Simpson, Bradley. Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and U.S.-Indonesian Relations, 1960–1968. Stanford University Press, 2010. p. 1. ISBN 0804771820
  107. Brad Simpson (Winter 2013). The Act of Killing and the Dilemmas of History. Film Quarterly. Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 10-13. Published by: University of California Press. Retrieved 9 May 2014.
  108. Brad Simpson (28 February 2014). It's Our Act of Killing, Too. The Nation. Retrieved 9 May 2014.
  109. 109.0 109.1 Kai Thaler (December 2, 2015). 50 years ago today, American diplomats endorsed mass killings in Indonesia. Here's what that means for today. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 4, 2015.
  110. 110.0 110.1 Margaret Scott (November 2, 2015) The Indonesian Massacre: What Did the US Know? The New York Review of Books. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  111. Samantha Michaels (October 1, 2015). It's Been 50 Years Since the Biggest US-Backed Genocide You've Never Heard Of. Mother Jones. Retrieved December 25, 2015.
  112. Bellamy, Alex J. (2012). Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-928842-9. p. 210.
  113. 113.0 113.1 David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L. H. McCormack (2007). The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International Humanitarian Law). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-04-15691-7 pp. 80–81
  114. Vickers, Adrian (2005). A History of Modern Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54262-6 p. 157
  115. Friend, Theodore (2003). Indonesian Destinies. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01137-6 p. 117
  116. Sabarini, Prodita (February 16, 2014). Director calls for US to acknowledge its role in 1965 killings. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved November 5, 2015.
  117. U.S. Seeks to Keep Lid on Far East Purge Role. The Associated Press via The Los Angeles Times, July 28, 2001. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  118. Thomas Blanton (ed). CIA STALLING STATE DEPARTMENT HISTORIES: STATE HISTORIANS CONCLUDE U.S. PASSED NAMES OF COMMUNISTS TO INDONESIAN ARMY, WHICH KILLED AT LEAST 105,000 IN 1965-66. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 52., July 27, 2001. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  119. CIA Admits Involvement in Chile. ABC News. September 20
  120. John Dinges. The Condor Years: How Pinochet And His Allies Brought Terrorism To Three Continents. The New Press, 2005. p. 20. ISBN 1565849779
  121. 121.0 121.1 Crabb, Cecil V.; Pat Holt (1992). Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy (2nd ed.). Michigan: Congressional Quarterly. pp. 187–211. ISBN 978-0-87187-622-5.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  122. 122.0 122.1 122.2 122.3 Forsythe, David (1988). Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. pp. 1–23. ISBN 978-0-8130-0885-1.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  123. Daniel Goldhagen (2009). Worse Than War. PublicAffairs. ISBN 1-58648-769-8 p.537
    • "During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."
  124. "The Cold War in Central America, 1975-1991" John H. Coatsworth, Ch 10
  125. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (2014). The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume I. Haymarket Books. p. xviii. ISBN 1608464067
  126. McVeigh, Karen (December 6, 2011). "Gay rights must be criterion for U.S. aid allocations, instructs Obama". The Guardian. London. Retrieved January 4, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  127. Adomanis, Mark (December 19, 2013). "Barack Obama Is Right To Promote Gay Rights In Russia, Now He Should Be Consistent". Forbes. Retrieved December 25, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  128. Bershidsky, Leonid (December 19, 2013). "Putin Plays Games to Salvage Olympics". Retrieved December 25, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  129. Pascale Bonnefoy (30 June 2014). Chilean Court Rules U.S. Had Role in Murders. The New York Times. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  130. "Memorandum for the Secretary of State". September 15, 2005. Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  131. Noam Chomsky (July 3, 2014). Whose Security? How Washington Protects Itself and the Corporate Sector. Moyers & Company. Retrieved July 10, 2014.
  132. Eric Lichtblau (October 26, 2014). In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis. The New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2014.
  133. The Nazis Next Door: Eric Lichtblau on How the CIA & FBI Secretly Sheltered Nazi War Criminals. Democracy Now! October 31, 2014.
  134. Peter Kornbluh (September 11, 2013). The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. The New Press. ISBN 1595589120 p. xviii
  135. 135.0 135.1 Walter L. Hixson (2009). The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press. p. 223. ISBN 0300151314
  136. What Guilt Does the U.S. Bear in Guatemala? The New York Times, May 19, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  137. Duncan Campbell (December 5, 2003). Kissinger approved Argentinian 'dirty war'. The Guardian. Retrieved August 29, 2015.
  138. Greg Grandin (2011). The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War. University of Chicago Press. p. 75. ISBN 9780226306902
  139. J. Patrice McSherry (2002). "Tracking the Origins of a State Terror Network: Operation Condor". Latin American Perspectives. 29 (1): 36–60. doi:10.1177/0094582X0202900103.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  140. Goodenough, Patrick. "And The Country Posing The Greatest Threat to Peace as 2013 Ends is …". CNS News. Retrieved August 18, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  141. "US the biggest threat to world peace in 2013 – poll — RT News". Retrieved August 18, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  142. Editorial, Post (January 5, 2014). "US is the greatest threat to world peace: poll | New York Post". Retrieved August 18, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  143. The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965–1989. David F. Schmitz. 2006.
  144. 144.0 144.1 Do the sums, then compare U.S. and Communist crimes from the Cold War Telegraph, 11 December 2005, Niall Ferguson
  145. Give peace a rating May 31, 2007, from The Economist print edition
  146. Japan ranked as world's 5th most peaceful nation: report Japan Today, May 31, 2007
  147. Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> pp. 221–224, 314.
  148. DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Online links: [1] [2] [3]
  149. No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.
  150. Caliendo, S.M. (1999). "All the News That's Fit to Print? New York Times Coverage of Human-Rights Violations". The Harvard International Journal of Press Politics. 4: 48–69. Retrieved April 2, 2008.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  151. Caliendo, Stephen. and Gibney, Mark. (2006). "American Print Media Coverage of Human Rights Violations". Retrieved April 2, 2008. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  152. Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
  153. W. John Green (June 1, 2015). A History of Political Murder in Latin America: Killing the Messengers of Change. SUNY Press. p. 147. ISBN 1438456638
  154. "Democracy". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  155. Clinton, Bill (January 28, 2000). "1994 State Of The Union Address". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  156. [4]
  157. Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (November 28, 2010). "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2010. The cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world. ...<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  158. "Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  159. Advancing Freedom and Democracy
  160. "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  161. "Human Rights Reports". Retrieved February 18, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  162. [5][dead link]
  163. [6][dead link]
  164. [7][dead link]

Further reading

  • Bailey, Thomas. A Diplomatic History of the American People (10th ed. Prentice Hall, 1980)
  • Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II (Common Courage Press, 2003)
  • Borgwardt, Elizabeth. "A New Deal for the World" (Harvard UP, 2005)
  • Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (Metropolitan Books, 2003)
  • Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 4, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945–1991 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
  • Fawcett, Louise, ed. International Relations of the Middle East (3rd ed. Oxford U.P. 2013)
  • Freedman, Lawrence. A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East (PublicAffairs, 2009)
  • Gries, Peter Hays. The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs (Stanford University Press, 2014)
  • Hastedt, Glenn P. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy (Facts on File, 2004)
  • Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions. 24 (2): 91–114. doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford History of the United States) (2008)
  • Hixson, Walter L. The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press, 2009. ISBN 0300151314
  • Hook, Steven W. and John Spanier. American Foreign Policy Since WWII (19th ed. 2012)
  • Ikenberry, G. John, ed. American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays (6th ed. Wadsworth, 2010), 640pp; essays by scholars
  • Iriye, Akira. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 3, The Globalizing of America, 1913–1945 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
  • Jentleson, Bruce W. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century (4th ed. W. W. Norton, 2010)
  • Jentleson, Bruce W. and Thomas G. Paterson, eds. Encyclopedia of U.S. Foreign Relations (4 vol 1997), long historical articles by scholars
  • LaFeber, Walter. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: The American Search for Opportunity, 1865–1913, vol. 2 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
  • Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4132-1.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • McCormick, James M. et al. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (2012)
  • McDougall, Walter. "Promised Land, Crusader State" (2004)
  • Mead, Walter Russell, and Richard C. Leone. Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (2002)
  • Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391–402. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002. JSTOR 424565.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Nichols, Christopher McKnight. "Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age" (2011)
  • Paterson, Thomas G. and others. American Foreign Relations (6th ed. 2 vol, Wadsworth, 2004), a detailed history
  • Perkins, Bradford. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 1, The Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776–1865 (Cambridge UP, 1995)
  • Sergent, Daniel J. A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s (2015)
  • Schulzinger, Robert. A Companion to American Foreign Relations (Wiley Blackwell Companions to American History) (2006). 26 essays by scholars; emphasis on historiography
  • Smith, Tony; Richard C. Leone (1995). America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04466-X.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Watry, David M. Diplomacy at the Brink: Eisenhower, Churchill, and Eden in the Cold War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2014.
  • Wittkopf, Eugene R. et al. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process (2007)

External links