Abstract
This paper states that both the Cold War and the present-day War on Terror doctrines are excellent examples of a "good-versus-evil" paradigm that paints U.S. international affairs in unsophisticated shades of black and white. The author points out that the Bush doctrine is wholly committed to pre-empting terror and not merely interested in containing it as in the Truman Cold War doctrine. The paper concludes that both approaches call for a vigilant and aggressive America that seeks to advance its own security wherever it is deemed necessary.

From the Paper
"In many respects, it may be said that the Truman Doctrine began the "policy of containment" whereby the United States would aggressively confront any expansion of communism outside of the USSR and Eastern Europe. By comparison, the Bush Doctrine - while it would certainly seem amenable to offering military and financial support to foreign countries that are genuinely eager to engage the terrorist threat - is much more about pre-emption than about containment."

Tags:pre-emption, containment, zero-sum, militant, ideology

Abstract
In this article, the writer looks at how the "black-and-white" paradigm of the Cold War (the idea, in other words, that international affairs was a zero-sum game) has been re-introduced in the contemporary age via the War on Terror. The paper looks at both the Truman and Bush doctrines and describes how each is a manifestation of a foreign policy view that believes America's options are quite stark and that strong measures are necessary if the country's future is to be secured. The writer concludes that the paradigm shaping the U.S. outlook on foreign policy today is not a new one - and it is still one demanding an activist, interventionist approach to addressing situations in the global community.

Tags:foreign, policy, paradigm

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."

Tags:imperialism, financing, integration, bush, mckinley

Abstract
The paper looks at America's past foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union and Communism. The paper also discusses the war against terrorism today and reveals that the true incentive behind the war in Iraq may have been financial, although there were moral victories attained as a result. The paper concludes that while morality should certainly have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, in recent years, the financial goals of the United States seem to outweigh the altruistic ones.

Outline:
Introduction
The Past and U.S. Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy and Communism
Morality, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism
Moral Victories May be the Outcome of Financial Gain
Conclusion

From the Paper
"United States foreign policy has always been about political relationships for financial gain combined with moral idealism (Fox 2000). Therefore, morality has played a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, and should continue to do so. Whether this "morality" is genuine is questionable, and lately the U.S. has appeared to many to be the equivalent of a greedy bully, seeking financial benefits with no care for assisting the impoverished, oppressed, and/or those who may benefit from a morality driven U.S. foreign policy. These U.S. foreign endeavors are done under the guise of morality, which often result in more harm than good for the citizens of nations that such U.S. foreign policy is choosing to target, which is immoral in its very nature."

Tags:Soviet, Union, Vietnam, communism, Iraq, Iran, altruism

Abstract
This paper examines U.S. foreign policy towards North Korea and identifies some policy issues in the area of peace and conflict. It further analyzes the situation and the proposals to resolve this issue by presenting a theoretical understanding of the problem and its potential resolution. Additionally, the paper critically discusses the Bush administration's policy toward North Korea. This is followed by an extensive literature review on the topic of US foreign policy toward North Korea and North Korea's economic situation. Various outlooks are presented, but all focus on the nation being seen as being an outsider in international diplomacy. The paper concludes with a discussion of North Korea's nuclear arms capabilities.

Outline:

Objective
Statement of Thesis
Introduction
Security Dilemma or Rogue State
Economic Reform in North Korea
Engagement, Containment and Transformation
Summary and Conclusion

From the Paper
"However, the work of Xizhen and Brown relates that North Korea is a state "whose external support system rapidly and traumatically disappeared a decade ago; a state confronted by hostile neighbors who wish to undermine its regime and who are heavily armed or possible military actions against it; and a state whose limited ability to participate in the global economy is confined to selling abroad for hard currency the few things that it does well: military equipment, including missile technology." (2000, p.1) It is stated that the policies that the United States, Japan, South Korea and China should be examined and policy shifts should be examined that involve these states providing North Korea encouragement to take a more active role and one that is more positive in building a "durable framework for Northeast Asian regional authority." "

Tags:UN Security Council, nuclear disarmament, isolation and containment

Abstract
This paper presents three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy, dealing with nuclear arms reduction; unilateralism versus multilateralism and the role of multilateralism to serve American interests; and presidential power in making foreign policy.

Tags:arms, reduction, unilateralism, multilateralism, presidency, congress, war, powers

Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses that the foreign policy strategies of the current U.S. administration have been examined by numerous entities, with much discussion as to whether or not they are effective for the country and/or hinder the nation's foreign relations. The writer points out that the preemptive war strategy that the United States has adopted is focused on a policy of strike before the country is attacked.

From the Paper
"At the current time in history there are many issues that are affecting the lives of people across the globe. Scores of individuals are faced with genocide in their own countries, while others are living with the reality of terrorism on a consistent basis. In the United States there is unrest because of changing policies that some Americans believe are detrimental to their constitutional rights, but the government contends are needed in order to ensure national security."

Tags:policy

Abstract
This paper looks at the question, "Is the U.S. seeking to protect its own national security or simply to secure its own national interests throughout the world by having a unilateral approach to foreign policy decisions?" The paper uses two main sources as the basis for the analysis of this question: "Logic of American Foreign Policy" by Patrick Callahan, published in 2004; and the fifth edition of "American Foreign Policy" by Glenn Hastedt, published in 2003/4. These two main sources are introduced, in depth, and the frameworks that arise from these books are then used to frame an analysis of the question posed in this paper; supplementary examples are taken from recent political involvements of the U.S. in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and China. The final section of the paper, therefore, looks at the question from the viewpoint of the book reviews, with supplementary information where necessary.

From the Paper
"Essentially, Callahan's book looks, in depth, at six facets (or "logics") of the role the United States plays on the world stage: hegemonism, liberalism, realism, isolationism, liberal internationalism, and anti-imperialism. The book looks at each of these logics, and essentially traces the development of these logics through the study of the relevant policy documents and historical responses to these policies; a critical summary is then given for each logic. Three case studies are then presented at the end of the main body of the text: the debate following US intervention in Kosovo; the debate surrounding the 1990 Chinese trade debate, and the events following the events of September 11th 2001. These issues will be discussed, when relevant, in the present paper."

Tags:callahan, september, 11, kosovo, bosnia, iraq, china

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)"

Tags:moderates, oil, flowing, usa, military, strikes, iraq, kuwait, saddam, husseing, leader

Abstract
The United States' foreign policy to Israel is and always has been highly influenced by domestic politics, particularly by presidential elections. This paper begins by describing the effect of electoral politics upon the foreign policy of American presidents. It then outlines the power of the Jewish vote, the Jewish lobby, and the growing power of the fundamentalist Christian vote. The paper then notes that, although policy toward Israel is strongly influenced by domestic policy, it is virtually nonpartisan. The paper discusses the limits of domestic political influence on foreign policy and the strategic basis for presidential decisions concerning the region. It concludes by looking towards the future of domestic special interest groups.

From the Paper
"In Heroic Diplomacy, Kenneth Stein calls US policy in the Middle East "remarkably non-partisan." The major parties may put forth candidates with consistently opposed domestic agendas, but with regard to Israeli policy, disagreements about aid, intervention, and peace do not happen down party lines. An early example of this was in the leadership of the American Zionist Emergency Council, which was co-led by the strong Democrat Rabbi Stephen Wise and the ardent Republican Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver. A present-day nonpartisan issue is whether or not Bush should be more involved in the peace process."

Tags:arafat, ariel, sharon, palestine