| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "U S FOREIGN POLICY MIDDLE": |
|
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
An overview of the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and whether it can be considered morally justifiable.
2,462 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the quagmire of Middle East politics and how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy in that region of the world. The paper discusses whether U.S. objectives and its foreign policy in the Middle East are morally justifiable and concludes that they are because the goal of the U.S. is primarily one of helping people of the third world countries, while at the same time protecting her own interests.
From the Paper
"As far as the scourge of terrorism is concerned, it is a sad but true fact that no leader has managed to succeed in getting to the very root of the problem and thereby finding an appropriate solution to it. There may be a satisfactory explanation for this fact; it may be that the very nature of terrorism being what it is: quite unpredictable and also very asymmetrical, it is virtually impossible to find an adequate solution to the problem, and the underlying issues are so many and so widespread that it is an unattainable goal to hope to find an ideal solution to combat 'terrorism'. In fact, it can be safely stated that the West has actually and virtually outstayed its welcome in most parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, rich in oil as it is, and the leaders in those parts of the world, fuelled by their innate greed, grew from being mere allies of the West to real and true despots, and this because of the one thing that all the world needs: Oil. In fact, Osama bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein were allies of the USA in both the US war against Afghanistan as well as in the US war against Iraq respectively. (Going Tactical)"
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Since 1991, 2006.
A critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991.
3,419 words (approx. 13.7 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 96.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author takes a critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991. He examines how prior to 1991, American policy was aimed primarily at using some countries led by Israel as a bulwark against communism in the Cold War years. He highlights that with the end of a bipolar world there was a radical shift in American policy towards the Middle East. The paper examines how this was brought about by the threat America saw to its most vital interest -oil in the region as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; at the same time, with the sudden demise of the hitherto counterbalancing factor, the Soviet Union, the stage was set for a decisive policy. In conclusion, the author argues that the American policy of planting democracy in societies that do not have the necessary preconditions and institutional frameworks of accepting and absorbing the system could mean risking backlashes and other actions.
From the Paper
"In the absence of the Soviet factor, American policy in the Middle East has become more intrusive; American policy could have a positive impact if its moves towards establishing its policy are perceived as being salutary. A prime test case of this policy is the way its role is seen in the Israeli-Palestine issue. (Cantori, 1994, p. 452) The immediate years after the Gulf War led to a hyperactive engagement in the region under president Bill Clinton, for whom resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a principal goal. In his presidency, America assumed the role of an 'honest broker' in bringing about a peaceful settlement of issues bedevilling the region. However, before substantial headway was made, a new regime took guard under Bush Jr., under whom the same vigour was not enforced. American interventionism, which became low-key under the new dispensation, has led to suspicion in Arab quarters that America, with its uncompromising tilt towards Israel, has not been the 'honest broker' that it promised to be."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2004.
Compares U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.
956 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the U.S. foreign policy towards Middle Eastern and Latin American countries before 9/11 and post 9/11. The foreign policy is analyzed, its inherent problems are highlighted, and a comparison of U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America is made.
From the Paper
"With all eyes turned toward Iraq and the Middle East, South America rarely makes the headlines in the United States. Except for perhaps tighter controls and security on U.S. borders and waterways since September 11th , it seems Latin foreign policies are not top priorities for Washington. However, recent events in October in Bolivia led to ?a massive mobilization of Indians and peasants?military crackdowns that left as many as 70 people dead?and led to the demise of the conservative Gonzalo S?nchez de Lozada government on Oct."
| |
|
Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Discusses reasons behind America's shift in foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea.
1,514 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
U.S. foreign policy is continuously evolving with each new president. However, for the most part, U.S. foreign policy has been based on the idea of containment. This idea of containment was quickly altered after the horrific attacks of 9/11. It appears the U.S. position on foreign policy was forced to change due to the revived ?hot spots? in the Middle East and Korea. This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea; however, the main focus of this paper examines why U.S. foreign policy has shifted to preemption from containment. The paper includes quotes by President Bush and Colin Powell.
From the Paper
"Even with all these tensions, the U.S. continues to hold out that diplomacy will resolve the crisis on the Korean peninsula. The U.S wants open dialogue to be multilateral, involving South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and the Chinese. However, North Korea wants the talks to be unilateral between Pyongyang and Washington. The Chinese believe they are being rebuffed, and also believe that the peninsula ought to be nuclear weapons free. Chinese officials stated, ?This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and world we?re not going to be threatened? (Bush, 4)."
| |
|
U.S.-Iraq Foreign Policy, 2003.
An examination of the international relationship between the U.S. and Iraq over the past two decades.
2,802 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the United States foreign policy toward the Middle East has been greatly tested, challenged and even questioned. From the Iran-contra scandal that plagued the Reagan administration even down to the current foreign policy concerning anti-terrorism, it looks at how the nation has been forced to constantly evaluate how much its foreign policy measures up to its ideals of freedom and liberty. It analyzes the relationship with Iraq and how the United States is justified in its current ideologies as it concerns Iraq. It evaluates how its application of that policy not only contradicts the United Nations'(UN) policy, but it also defeats itself, for its application deviates far from its theoretical principles.
Outline
Iraqi History and Foreign Policy
Historical View of U.S. Foreign Policy
Current U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Problems
From the Paper
"The United States also claims that the Iraqi government is still manufacturing and mass-producing weapons of mass destruction; and therefore, it is the United States? duty to stop Iraq from producing such weapons. The problem with this argument is that the conflict regarding Iraq?s alleged production of mass destruction has always been a conflict between the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not between Iraq and the United States. Additionally, before the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was withdrawn from Iraq, it documented the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, forty-eight missiles, six missile launchers, thirty missile warheads, and hundreds of materials that were equipped with the ability to produce chemical weapons (Zunes 2). While early UNSCOM inspections revealed evidence of Iraq producing large amounts of biological agents (to include anthrax), it quickly set up highly technological devices to detect chemical and biological weapons, even after they were dismantled after the December 1998 bombing raids from the Clinton administration. And even if the Iraqi government were to be bold enough to continue to engage in mass production of biological and/or chemical weapons, these weapons would almost certainly be detected by the satellite system put in place by UNSCOM and later destroyed in tactical air strikes."
| |
|
Current U.S. Foreign Policy, 2002.
This paper outlines the post war policies that the U.S. and the world have adopted towards Iraq.
2,415 words (approx. 9.7 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the current American position in world politics and how its entire foreign policy is centered on Iraq. It discusses the war with Iraq and how this affects the U.S.'s relations with other countries. The Bush Doctrine is examined and how this policy not only affects Iraq and its neighbors, but the entire Middle East. The paper concludes with a discussion of the Allied Forces which joined America - United Kingdom; Germany; France and Russia.
From the Paper
"The war in Iraq and the protests of people around the world has given a clear signal to the American government and policy makers that the world has become a different place. That every attempt of American expansionism and corporate imperialism will be opposed, the unilateral policies of United States has to change and being a superpower it has to realize its responsibilities. The opposition from the European countries, the Arab community and China should be a great concern to America. The American foreign policies clearly show that the goal of its leader is to expand the American empire with the method of progressive imperialism. The United States because of its policies has become isolated in the world and has become an object of hatred around the world. If the unilateral and expansionism policies are continued the fate of American empire will not be different from Roman Empire."
| |
|
U.S. Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
This paper compares two books which discuss current U.S. policy in the Middle East.
1,200 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Ali Ansari in "Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East" paints the current crisis with Iran as a lesson in mutually antagonistic behavior that is demonstrated by the inability of United States presidents, from Carter to Bush, to formulate an effective policy for dealing with this country. The author points out that Dennis Ross in "The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Peace in the Middle East" commends the U.S re-involvement in the Israel-Palestinian problem, introduced in President Bush's historic 2002 speech, which outlined a strategy for peace calling for a two state solution. The paper relates that both Ansari and Ross are strong believers in the power of communication because, as long as all sides to these political clashes are still talking, there is hope for peaceful solutions and cooperation rather than chaos.
From the Paper
"Ansari does not take a particularly optimistic tone about the chances of these changes happening. He is very adamant that they must happen or the resulting conflict will "make Iraq look like the cakewalk it was prophesied to be." . Ansari presents his argument in a very matter-of-fact manner, taking the struggle between Iran and the United States step by step from their first official contact in 1856 all the way into the present day. A very realistic, pragmatic tone is taken that, while not entirely hopeful, does suggest that differences can be bridged."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
Examines America's foreign policy in the Middle East since 1991.
2,764 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 17 sources, APA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper critically assesses the impact of U.S. foreign policy on the Middle East since 1991. It explores how the post-Cold War global order affects Middle East politics and how the conflict in the Middle East affects the 'New World Order'.
Table of Contents:
Part I: Summary
Part II: Background to and Nature of American Policy in the Middle East since 1991
Part III: Impact of American Policy in the Middle East
Part IV: Conclusion.
From the Paper
"America's policy of coercive appropriation of the region's only major resource has had another parallel, though highly profound impact. In order to break free from what the countries of the region perceive as the American stranglehold over their resources, many countries have started cooperating with each other to exploit the oil-rich Caspian region. Based on the idea of excluding America from the pipeline grid, this brings several countries from even outside the periphery of the Middle East in close ties with each other. This could spell a total alteration of the geo-strategic dynamics of the region."
| |
|
U.S. and Mid-East Foreign Policy, 2003.
A discussion of why American foreign policy towards the Middle East is questionable.
3,200 words (approx. 12.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 92.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Outlines the events leading up to the September 11th attacks, covering the U.S.'s new dependency on oil after WWI, the creation of the Israeli state, U.S. involvement in Iran, U.S. involvement in Iraq during the 80s, and the devastating sanctions on Iraq.
From the Paper
"On September 11th 2001, terrorists attacked the United States. In the immediate aftermath so many Americans asked the same question??Why??, Why would anyone do something as horrific as that? I found myself asking the same question, and I immediately began looking for the answer through research. What I?ve found is that the only way to try to comprehend the hatred that many Americans have been forced to witness after years of being able to look the other way, is to look at how the roots of resentment in the Middle East sprouted into something uncontrollable. This development of hatred can be outlined through the history of the United States? foreign policy in the region, a history of the U.S. doing almost anything to protect its interests while ignoring the plight of the native citizens, the well being of other nations, and even going as far as ignoring the United States? own ideals."
| |
|
Foreign Policy towards the Middle East, 2007.
This paper explains what must be the goals of the U.S. administration's future Middle Eastern policy.
1,247 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer maintains that the the goals of future U.S. Middle Eastern policy should be peace, the promise of a new United States image in the region, and greater independence from the nations that would cause harm. The writer then argues that the three main goals of the next administration should and must be to begin to bring the current conflict in Iraq to a successful or at least manageable political and diplomatic solution rather than a military conclusion, to facilitate new negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians and finally to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The writer concludes that diplomacy and acting multilaterally must be the goal, both of the U.S. policy in its phased withdrawal from Iraq and also in continuing to strive to broker an effective peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
From the Paper
"At present, Iraq is a failed state and American military policy is a failed policy. The Iraqi government cannot protect its people, deliver services, collect revenues, or administer its laws. Renegade Iraqi militias are the real legal powers. Embedding more U.S. troops will simply result in further U.S. causalities. A diplomatic solution is the only hope."
"The goal of the next administration must be to create a representational Iraqi government over the next four years that is able to exert control over its oil reserves, force the militias to transfer military power to the state regime, and enforce minority rights. In exchange for turning over arms there will be amnesty for all combatants, to avoid diverting important resources into show trials that will only further divide the nation, as did the trial and execution of the former dictator Saddam Hussein."
| |
|
American Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2002.
A look at the history of the relationship between the Middle East and the Western World.
1,454 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the history of foreign policy in the Middle East. It goes into the vast differences between cultures of the Arab world and cultures of the rest of the world and compares them in a global environment. Terms, such as globalization, tribalism, and imperialism are discussed and used to compare relations between the Middle East and the Western world. The paper also goes into current trends in foreign policy toward the Middle East. It has become more manipulating than helpful. The people of the Middle East still suffer, despite the efforts of the United States. In fact, the United States government is more concerned with maintaining a balance of power between Middle Eastern nations than maintaining the integrity of human rights. This paper places all of this content into an organized display.
From the Paper
"The events that are occurring at this very time in the Middle East are grim. Every place one looks, there is a violation of human rights, someone being killed, a war going on, or a level of poverty exists that an American could not even comprehend. Throughout the beautiful landscapes, warlords and military dictators have taken over countries and the populations live in fear. In the news, Americans see huge crowds cheering when the US flag is burnt, and the president being hung. After September 11, 2001, American children could see Arab children on television cheering at the disaster. The roots of this Arab rage lead right back to American foreign policy in the region."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy: Anti-Americanism in the Middle East, 2001.
2,430 words (approx. 9.7 pages), 14 sources, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the origins of hatred in the Middle East linking it to the U.S. Foreign Policy. The author cites examples of US involvement in the region -- emphasizing the US's bias towards Israel over its neighboring countries, Jordan, Egypt etc.
From the Paper
"It is said that U.S. Foreign Policy is to blame for widespread anti-Americanism in the Middle Eastern nations and regions. Major policy critics and politicians for instance Zunes, Chomsky, Telhami, and Blum brought up many important issues that are directly linked to the foreign policy. Political and military actions taken by the United States in the past raised much disapproval and hate in the Muslim world population and planted a cause for the formation of Islamic extremist groups and their followers."
| |
|
U.S. Policies Concerning OPEC, 2002.
A comprehensive analysis of the role of economic sanctions in U.S. foreign policy.
10,420 words (approx. 41.7 pages), 19 sources, APA, $ 208.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes how U.S. foreign policy has developed as the result of American efforts to influence the price and supply of oil in OPEC countries. Also examined are the impact of variations in the supply and price of oil on the U.S. economy, the 1970 oil crisis, the impact of the Persian Gulf War, and the current unrest in the Middle East in this context. A summary of the research is presented in the conclusion.
Outline
Major Players and Events Influencing U.S. Foreign Policy
Overview of Issues Related to Economic Sanctions
Overview of the Persian Gulf
Impact of the Persian Gulf War of U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
From the Paper
"Since the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, U.S. dependence on oil imports has risen to record levels, from 28 percent in 1973 to 48 percent in 1997 (?The 1973 Oil Embargo: What Have We Learned In the Last 25 Years?,? n. pag.). Through 1972, Americans had become accustomed to expanding energy consumption with minimal concerns about the constancy of supply or sharp price escalations. In 1973, however, expectations about energy supply changed dramatically. The turmoil started early in 1973, as customers experienced the first symptoms of something being wrong with electricity brown outs and rapidly rising prices for fuels and other necessities. Price controls and allocation systems not only failed to resolve these problems, they seemed to aggravate them. Most memorably, October brought an oil embargo by members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, cutting further into the supply of oil and elevating prices to levels previously thought impossible. Customers experienced lines and sometimes no fuel at gasoline stations. A year of bad news was punctuated in December, when the President announced that because of the energy crisis the lights on the national Christmas tree would not be turned on. Throughout the year, energy stayed at the forefront of public attention. Interruptions in energy supplies were also closely related to other issues of national importance-a weakening of the economy and a reassessment of America's strategic position in the world. From 1973 to the mid-1980's, prices continued at very high levels, in part because of a second oil shock in 1979-80. During this period, rapid progress was made in raising American oil production, reducing dependence on oil imports, and improving end-use efficiency. After the oil price collapse of the mid-1980's, however, prices retreated to more moderate levels, the pace of efficiency gains slowed, American oil production fell, and the share of imports rose. Other, more violent events in the Middle East, however, would soon create a new political situation in which the U.S. was to be forced to create foreign policy directly as a result of America?s need for oil."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy During the Vietnam War, 2000.
A look at how pre-Vietnam War U.S .foreign policy had strong links to the foreign policy in the Vietnam War.
2,105 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 9 sources, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses American foreign policy before Vietnam and foreign policy in Vietnam, and shows how a number of the elements that led to these policies were present in governmental perspectives for decades.
From the Paper
"Though the foreign policies decisions that were instrumental in the Vietnam War were different from the policies that supported other international actions during the 20th century, including World War II and the Korean War, a number of the elements that led to these policies were present in governmental perspectives for decades. One of the most significant influencing factors in the policy developments of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations was the perceived threat of communism and the necessity of action to prevent its spread. This factor had been present in the development of foreign policy since before the First World War, and led to the perception of the necessity of force to stomp out its proliferation."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
|
|
|
