Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy

Contemporary International Problems POL 300

March 4, 2012

The Reagan Doctrine was no different. Presupposing a world of evil and good, it operated on the theory that evil, was in the form of the USSR, and was getting the upper hand. To Reagan and his advisers, examples of Soviet treachery, including support for Marxist movements around the globe, were numerous; moreover, Soviet adventurism, from the Horn of Africa in the 1970s to Central America in the 1980s, showed no signs of lessening. Reagan was intent on stopping that trend—a trend, he believed, that President Carter had done little to reverse. Therefore, he adopted the vocabulary of the early Cold War, advocating policies equally aggressive and bold in range (Foreign Affairs). Reagan presented his vision at his State of the Union Address on February 6, 1985. "We must not break faith," he declared, "with those who are risking their lives—on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth." The president went on to compare anticommunist forces with American colonists who had fought the revolutionary war, relating those early patriots as "freedom fighters" for democracy. Providing aid to those groups was not only ethically just but geopolitically sensible. "Support for freedom fighters," Reagan declared, "is self-defense." It would be months before those declarations would take form as a permanent statement of policy. In the short-term, a further promise to support "freedom fighters," made on February 22 by Secretary of State George Shultz to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, lent added weight to Reagan's message. It was neither Reagan nor his advisers who placed the president's name to the set of policies he was announcing. Charles Krauthammer, a commentator on foreign affairs, who came up with the term "Reagan Doctrine" in a Time magazine column of April 1985 (NYTimes). Reagan's routine of waging Cold War through alternative forces had a long doctrinal history, one that dated back to the early years of the Cold War. Presidents from Truman through Carter had all sought to aid governments or movements battling communism, but it was Reagan who, debatably, endowed that policy with its utmost energy. The idea that Moscow was behind leftist movements in the Third World was one of the doctrine's guiding principles. Reagan stated during the 1980 presidential campaign, "the Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on. If they weren't engaged in this game of dominoes, there wouldn't be any hot spots in the world." Reagan chose to participate in that game early in his administration, authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency in 1981 to start financing the "contra" forces battling the pro-Soviet Sandinista faction for rule of Nicaragua. Funding for such anticommunist units suggests that the Reagan Doctrine looked like it was all ready being used long before it became enshrined as such (American). Aside from injecting an explicitly moral component into the nation's conduct of foreign affairs, the Reagan Doctrine augmented the geopolitical rationale of earlier efforts. It was the administration's position that the Truman Doctrine's version of containment, which had been designed originally to prevent Stalin's aims in Europe, was outdated. Since the 1950s the Kremlin had achieved significant amount of influence in the Third World, indicating that Moscow's ambitions were more global than originally thought. This new realism, according to the administration, called for a modification of those basic postulates first given by Policy Planning Staff director George Kennan during the first years of the Cold War. With the Reagan team geared up to challenge the Soviets all over the globe, administration spokespersons began to call their method "containment plus." Reagan officials would include an offensive component to containment that was at least as clear—and more wide-ranging—than anything that policy had authorized during the early Cold War. Secretary of State George Shultz, similar to Secretary John Foster Dulles before him, spoke of "rolling back" Soviet advancements, bringing back those nations and peoples for democracy. Shultz vowed to do so in a new setting, where Moscow was a global power dedicated to the safeguarding of communist regimes. That Soviet arrogance, known as the Brezhnev Doctrine—a 1968 statement by Premier Leonid Brezhnev proclaiming the permanent socialist gains—was abomination to Reagan, "an arrogant pretension," as he termed it, "that we must face up to." Reagan would employ his doctrine in an array of locales around the world, from Asia to Africa to Central America. In Afghanistan, the president wanted to aid forces working to overthrow the pro-Soviet government in Kabul. Using means similar to those of the Nixon Doctrine, Reagan supplied the guerrillas with significant amounts of military assistance in their battle against the invading Soviets. The administration presented similar support to Nicaraguan contras battling communist-dominated Sandinistas who had removed from power longtime dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle. Reagan offered aid to anticommunists in Angola contending with the Soviet-backed government for control of that newly independent country. In Cambodia the administration supported a coalition of forces working to overthrow a government set up by the Soviet-sponsored Vietnamese after Hanoi's invasion of 1979 (American). The Reagan Doctrine also enhanced the CIA, an institution that had come under fire during the 1970s as its misuse of power, investigated by Congress, came to light. Under the guidance of William J. Casey, the CIA resurrected its operations division, carrying out policies largely secured from public view. That stress on clandestine activity, would backfire during the second Reagan administration. Fears that "rogue" elements within the government were running U.S. foreign policy were brought out with the unfolding of the Iran-Contra affair, a political scandal that exposed how elements of the National Security Council undermined congressional legislation in an attempt to aid the Nicaraguan rebels (Whitehouse). U.S. and Russia (formerly USSR) relationship after the Cold War NATO still exists even though the Cold War has ended. NATO’s eastward expansion and the organization’s shift from a formerly defensive pact to an interventionist organization have unnerved Russia. The strategic nature of American missile defense, which disturbs nuclear parity between Russia and the U.S., is further compounded by NATO. Moscow feels threatened by the offensive military characteristics that NATO has adopted since the end of the Cold War, which has taken NATO from intervention in the former Yugoslavia to fighting in Afghanistan, and both security and training missions in the Middle East and Africa. In this regard, Vladimir Putin’s caustic speech on global security should come as no shock. In it Putin accused the U.S. of pursing the objective of establishing a uni-polar world through military might: Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. The apprehension of a looming war is very real amongst Russian planners. The Kremlin believes that the Russian Federation is simultaneously being encircled by NATO, a growing number of military bases, and finally American missiles. The 2008 Russo-Georgian War has also been called a proxy war by Russian officials. The Kremlin has stated that Mikheil Saakashvili, the leader of Georgia, represents American interests in the former Soviet Union. Georgia in this sense is seen as an American proxy or client state by Moscow. Russian suspicions were further corroborated when the U.S. declare that the Caucasus was a vital area to American strategic interests during the Russo-Georgian War. In it not coincidental that Georgia is one of the fasting militarizing states in the world and one of the largest recipients of American military aid. What is most important about the war between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia is that Russia said it would have not changed its course of action even if Georgia were a member of NATO. This alone demonstrates that the threat of a broader war involving Russia and the U.S. is no mere illusion (GlobalResearch). U.S. and Russia (formerly USSR) relationship today So has a reset button really been pushed in Russo-American relations by the Obama Administration with the 2009 announcement of a halt to American missile defense plans in Eastern Europe? President Barack Obama’s celebrated September 17 announcement that the U.S. is scrapping the components of the missile shield stationed close to Russia’s border in the Czech Republic and Poland is misleading. Shortly after Obama’s announcement the U.S. launched two experimental missile defense satellites into space from Cape Canaveral, Florida What Obama actually announced was not the scrapping of the missile shield, but a much more extensive and effective missile shield under revised plans that will include naval deployments onboard Aegis-equipped ships. The deployment of the missile shield is actually being expanded in Europe and beyond, from Turkey and the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea (GlobalResearch).

U.S. and China’s relationship today The discussions in Washington represent the continuation of a dialogue begun by the Bush administration, which focused on economic tensions between the two nations. Obama chose to expand the talks to include foreign policy issues as well as economic disputes. Top officials from both countries have called the relationship crucial to solving many of the world's crises. The Obama administration hopes the talks can set the groundwork for cooperation on climate change, lifting the world economy out of turmoil and addressing nuclear standoffs with North Korea and Iran. Both sides sought to underscore the importance of the revamped Strategic and Economic Dialogue, with Obama delivering a major policy address to welcome a sizable Chinese delegation of 150 diplomats. "I believe that we are poised to make steady progress on some of the most important issues of our times," Obama told officials from both countries assembled in the vast atrium of the Ronald Reagan Building. "The relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world," Obama said. Vice Premier Wang Qishan, China's top economic policymaker, said his country's attempts to create a more open economy would help U.S. recovery efforts. "With the furthering of China's reform and opening up, China and the United States will have even closer economic cooperation and trade relations and (the) China-U.S. relationship will surely keep moving forward," Wang said, speaking through an interpreter. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were leading the U.S. team. The Chinese delegation was led by Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Wang. Geithner and Wang both spoke of hopeful signs that the global economy was beginning to emerge from its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Geithner said the stimulus packages put together by Beijing and Washington had made a substantial contribution to fighting the global downturn and represented a milestone in economic cooperation between the two nations. The United States, the world's largest economy, accounts for about 22% of global output, and China around 7%. The combined impact of the massive stimulus programs should make a difference, economists said, in cushioning a recession that appears to be bottoming out in the United States and some other countries. Geithner traveled to Beijing last month to assure Chinese officials that federal budget deficits, which have ballooned because of government efforts to deal with the recession and stabilize the financial system, would be reined in once those crises have passed. He said Americans were already moving to boost their personal savings rates. Economists have long argued that is necessary to controlling U.S. trade deficits because it means Americans are not consuming as much in imports from China and other countries. "We are committed to taking measures to maintaining greater personal saving and to reducing the federal deficit to a sustainable level by 2013," Geithner said at the opening session of the talks. Geithner did not spell out how the administration planned to accomplish those objectives. Many private economists have said the Chinese are right to worry about a U.S. budget deficit that is projected to hit $1.85 trillion this year, four-times the previous record, and under the administration's estimates will not dip below $500 billion over the next decade. The Chinese, who have the largest foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury debt at $801.5 billion, have expressed worries that soaring deficits could spark inflation or a sudden drop in the value of the dollar, thus jeopardizing their investments. Zhu told reporters, "The Chinese government is a responsible government, and first and foremost our responsibility is the Chinese people, so of course we are concerned about the security of the Chinese assets." The United States played down the issue of China's currency, the Yuan, which American manufacturers contend is being kept at artificially low levels by Beijing to gain trade advantages against the United States. Both sides are trying to emphasize areas of agreement, in part to avoid upsetting global financial markets during a period of stress for the world economy. Geithner did say that it would be a "huge contribution to more rapid, balanced and sustained global growth" if China shifted toward more domestic-led growth and away from the current extensive reliance on exports. While Chinese officials have pledged to move in this direction, it was unclear that the changes would be fast enough or substantial enough to satisfy U.S. demands. The two nations are the world's largest emitters of the pollution blamed for global warming, but so far China has resisted calls to set specific caps on emissions or to eliminate tariffs on clean energy technology that the United States and other countries would like to sell them. The administration did praise China for its help in the nuclear standoff with North Korea. Clinton said the United States and China must work together to stop North Korean "provocations." She said both countries "appreciate the dangers of escalating tensions" and a possible arms race in East Asia. While the U.S. trade deficit with China has narrowed slightly this year, it is still the largest imbalance with any country. The U.S. Relationships with Russia and China The relationship with Russia is a challenging one in that Russia is a mere shell of its former self when it was the USSR. The Russians are still trying to wheel the same power that it had when it was the USSR. The issue with that is that it is having major problems politically and economically and that gives a slight advantage to the U.S. in its dealing with Russia. Russia has no leverage at all against the U.S. except the fact that the U.S. needs its vote at U.N. Security council meetings. On the other hand China is economically sound and its political party has a grave hold on its country. Yes the U.S. might not agree with the political system that China has in place but China is economically sound and is able to wheel all the power that comes with being the second largest economy in the world. The U.S. needs to keep its self in China’s good graces because the U.S. needs to be able to tap into the buying power that China has. Especially now, since China’s economy is flourishing and the U.S.’s is not doing so hot at the moment. The U.S. tends to be just a little more willing to forbear with anything that China does. The U.S. really has no leverage over China except for maybe militarily, but China could send a Million people to war and not miss them at anytime.
How the U.S. has changed how it deals with other countries in the last 20 years In the last twenty years the U.S. has had to take a look at its self and its foreign policies. The U.S. economy has slipped over the years it is not the strongest economy in the world. It has gone through several economic setbacks and a couple of wars that has left the U.S. in pretty bad shape. It has been able to convert several countries to democracy but there are a few communist countries that are doing well economically and politically. This has caused other countries to question whether democracy is their best way to go. Thus the U.S has to deal with countries and their political views with a different attitude than trying to convert them all to democracy as has been the U.S.’s strategy for years. The U.S. is looking to get along with as many countries as possible and not seem like the big bully in the room. The U.S. is willing to accept a country with a hybrid political and economic system such as China with its capitalist economy and Communist political system.

References
CNN, (2012) Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-16/ world/china.us.relations_1_chinese-foreign-ministry-official-chinese-president-hu-jintao-china?s=PM:WORLD

American Foreign Relations, (2012) Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Doctrines-The-reagan-doctrine.html

Foreign Affairs, (2012) Retrieved January 27, 2012 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/40801/stephen-s-rosenfeld/the-reagan-doctrine-the-guns-of-july

Global Research, (2011) Retrieved February 26, 2012 from http://www.globalresearch.ca /index.php?context=va&aid=16221

Roskin, M., & Berry, N. (2010). IR: The New World of International Relations: 2010 edition (8th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Longman/Pearson Education.

New York Times, (2012) Retrieved January 27, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com /keyword/reagan-doctrine

USA Today, (2012) Retrieved February 28, 2012 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/ washington/2009-07-27-obama-china_N.htm

About dot Com, (2012) Retrieved February 27, 2012 from http://usforeignpolicy.about.com /od/countryprofile1/p/usrussia.htm

White House, (2012) Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/ presidents/ronaldreagan