US Foreign Policy and World Domination - Essay Example

?Chapter 3 US FOREIGN POLICY AND INIFITE WORLD DOMINATION This chapter is being included in an attempt to establish a clear picture of US foreign policy and the influencing factors which contributed in the occurrence of the 2003 U.S.-Iraq war to further detail criticized egocentric factors like seizures of other resources, specifically oil. Discussion Since the end of cold war, US security policy in the Persian Gulf had been dominated by the issue of Iraq (Pauly & Lansforford 2005, p1). This is primarily because of the unending hegemonic thirst in the international sphere where U.S. is known to be the defending winner to this one. If not all, almost all would believe that the cold war was a pre-emptive strategy of both strong opposing states (United States and the Soviet Union) to prevent domination over the other party. As a result, congregation of States and Dominion happens to make stronger allies. In this sense, many political terminologies were coined to better explain the soundless phenomenon during that time. These would now include the strategy of deterrence – showing strong military weapon to deter the opposing ally. With this regards, Iraq during that time, was the pawn of the immense bi-polar struggle for influence in the middle-east Asian region. In line of the strategy, states during the cold-war were dominating other states and the use of sphere of influence is a great factor for the two parties involved. That time, Iraq, being one country which has rich natural resources was tried to be infatuated by the rival allies. It is believed that Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil and also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, and is a crucial point for regional and international security issues according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). This is one of the reasons that the states was hoping to gain. The use of oil by US industries was prominent in the post-war era and this prompted the US to fear oil supply depletion. Though one of the primary reason is to the fight for ultimate power, and resources can be consider as an important secondary ingredient to captivate. It is essential for us to understand deeper the cold-war because this is a phenomenon in which it can explain the spark of the U.S. - Iraq war in 2003. During the cold-war, Iraq had been used as a diplomatic battleground of the two opposing side which the United States viewed it as a strategic location to conquer Iran and the growing anti-fundamentalism in the gulf (p.1). Thus, Iraq, in the start is not the main target of the U.S. and that it is only used as an area of tactical spot to Iran. What started the divergence between the U.S. and Iraq is the invasion of the latter of Kuwait. This is also the point whereas Saddam Hussein had opened an area of condemnation and disintegration. Moreover, the United States find it to be not in their accordance and interest and it made a conflict because the U.S. want to liberate Kuwait and to use it as an strategic location diverting it from Iraq to captivate not only Iran but also Iraq as well (p.1). Because of this event, a grand coalition was formed by the United States manipulating the minds of the other Sates that they want to have a liberal international countries which greatly affect the international organization as well as countries itself. They even had Iraq as their ally through the U.S. – Iraq relations in 1990. This is because Saddam Hussein had a great impact and influence in the middle-east countries. In this event (grand coalition), United States seems to have a dual interest and also they have a great strategy to maintain their sole-power in the global arena. The American preference for international security has its root in the initial post- cold war administration . . . many US policy makers feared that America alone could not contain the Soviets and that the United States also needs a manpower reserves and economic resources of the major industrialized non-communist states. . . nature of the international system is neither Uni-polar nor multi-polar, but instead a “uni-multipolar” configurations in which there is one super power and a number of major power (pp, 4-5). In this sense, we can understand states having the want to overpower other states, though it not naked in the eye so to speak, international organizations and treaties or alike are just alternative means to dominate other states without using military force or any destructive wars. It can also be observed that only the power 5 states, which are capable to obtain nuclear power because of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, are the ones who have the capacity to overrule the other states and the world. They make laws and agreements to protect their power in the global sphere. This is why the US was also concerned about oil supplies being largely controlled by foreign interests like British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell (Committee of Foreign Relations, 1975). Moreover, the US also feared British control of numerous oil fields outside of the United States. “All the known oil fields, all the likely probable fields outside of the United States itself are in British hands or under British management of control, or financed by British capital” (Terzakian, 2006, p. 72). This prompted the US to be more restrictive of its oil exports and to consider other sources of oil. In a rational sense, why would the U.S. allow other states to be more capable in handle oil reserves which will make their economy more progressive in the end? In this days wherein we are living in an era of high mobile dependency (Edwards & Smith, 2008, p1), it is in no doubt that oil is a very essential resource that everyone wants to accumulate being the primary source of energy for mobiles and machines. During wars and periods of insecurity, oil prices and oil supply is often endangered. The US has placed much importance on the lack of security and the diversification of supplies which tends to deplete oil production and affect the politics of many countries of the world. The US has noted that it has become very much dependent on foreign imports and its so-called safe sources of oil are no longer safe (Walde, 2006, p. 2). From the post World War I to the post World War II era, the US was more or less self-sufficient in its oil supply; moreover, coal was more important to the US at that time. At present, the US has become more preoccupied with furnishing its oil supplies. Hence, it has secured its position in oil producing areas, including the US territories and the Middle East. However, the Middle East has become a highly volatile place and less amenable to US interests and dictates (Hagel, 2004, p. 3). Moreover, US support for Israel has made things difficult for US oil companies because of growing resentment of US presence and influence in the region. This has given rise to Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. Such views have made it even more difficult for the US to influence oil-producing nations (Walde, 2006, p. 1). There is a major issue regarding the US relationship with Saudi Arabia, mostly because of the internal security in the country. With Russia taking a more aggressive approach in its role in supplying Europe and Asia for their oil needs; and with the Middle East expanding into the world’s dominant oil production and reserves area, the US dependence on foreign oil is considered to be a risk. Internal US energy policy has been insufficient in handling internal demand, mostly because of the political complications arising from US consumers’ refusal to accept tax induced high oil prices (Transport Research Centre, 2008, p. 24). Much optimism is actually being pinned on technological innovations which can help improve energy savings and impose efficiency policy. However, at present, the thrust of the Obama Administration in terms of foreign policy and oil have not aggressively veered away from foreign oil dependence. The US continues to be dependent on foreign oil; consequently, the US is embroiled in the political issues which seem to follow oil use and production in the Middle East, Asia, and in other oil producing regions. Considering the fact that the US was the world’s largest oil user and producer, other countries were cautious about being cut off from the US as a source and user of oil (Committee of Foreign Relations, 1975). The US was especially not comfortable with the extent of supremacy that Britain was gaining in the Middle East. The US responded to British actions by implementing an open door policy with the knowledge that the companies that were taking advantage of open door policies would be Americans. In effect, this policy allowed the State Department to be open to development from nationals of all states, unrestricted by nationalistic policies and restrictions (Committee of Foreign Relations, 1975). The new Red Line Agreement was a more favourable agreement for the US in terms of oil access in the Middle East – allowing access to oil in Bahrain (American Foreign Relations, n.d). More complications in the political processes became apparent throughout the years with regard to oil and oil exploration within and outside the US. In terms of war and the economy, oil is an important commodity; obtaining a consensus on the different beliefs in relation to this resource is a near impossible task. It has become a seemingly ideological source of warfare which has not produced favourable results for all parties involved. When rich deposits of oil were determined at the Gulf of Mexico, interest in striking a profitable agreement with Mexico was raised. The US and Mexico were able to agree on the protection of companies operating in Mexico. However, Venezuelan oil production was still able to overwhelm Mexican oil production. By the end of the Second World War, Venezuela became the third leading oil producer in the world (New American Nation, 2011). A labour dispute between the major oil companies in Mexico eventually resulted in both the US and British oil interests in Mexico being set aside in favour of Mexican interests. This move by the Mexican government provided a powerful statement against international oil companies and was in favour of independent actions by developing nations (New American Nation, 2011). In response to the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, the US set forth its opposition to economic nationalism. The US was also prompted to express an activist role in stabilizing Western orientation of the Middle East and expressing public support for non-intervention in oil operations (Saunders, 1996, p. 2). The Iranian oil crisis of the early 1950s, was seen as a result of the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This company was Britain’s most valuable overseas asset, Britain feared that nationalizing it would jeopardize its oil interests. The US urged Britain to settle its oil interests with Iran, however Britain refused; furthermore, it staged a boycott of Iranian oil (New American Nation, 2011). The US failed in its settlement attempts between Iran and Britain; it also failed to convince the shah of Iran to remove nationalist Prime Minister Mossadeq (Heiss, 2009, p. 179). The Britain-initiated boycott reduced Iran’s earnings significantly and also created a major disturbance in Iranian politics. In order to ensure that Mossadeq would not displace the shah, the US and Britain funded and directed a coup which displaced Mossadeq and installed a government which was more favourable to US and British interests (Heiss, 2009, p. 180). After the coup, Iranian oil found its place in the international markets. The US role in settling Iranian oil interests, as well as the inclusion of US oil companies in the Iranian consortium, successfully established the US as the primary Western power in the Middle East. Moreover, “the short-term success of the Iranian model of covert intervention influenced subsequent US actions in the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia (New American Nation, 2011). The US became a much more significant player in the global exchange of oil and in oil interests, with influence falling in the Middle East and Asian region. Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy After the September 2001 attacks, coalitions with other nations became one of the most discussed policies. Moves towards international cooperation were proposed by various interest groups; however international cooperation was not welcomed by the US (Rubenfeld, 2004, p. 1971). International support for the US was expressed by various countries around the globe. There was also condemnation for the acts of the perpetrators. A more multilateral policy from the US was thus expected in the wake of the terrorist attacks. The US, however, was not obliging on this matter. It was still sticking to its unilateral policy. This policy was in sharp contrast to the European policies which were mostly geared towards multilateralism (Rogers, 2002). Such a unilateral approach was mostly built on policies pursued by the Republican majorities even before President Bush’s election. Considerable protest arose against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the UN proposals for an International Criminal Court (Rogers, 2002). This era of unilateralism was highly active during the Bush administration with no interest given to ratifying the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and no firm opposition on curtailing the weaponisation of space; moreover, their control of transfers of light arms was also non-committal to UN plans (Higgott, 2003). In furthering its unilateralist policy, the US also refused to ratify the Kyoto climate change protocols and it also opposed the protocol seeking to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. Much of Europe was frustrated with the US’ failure to engage with these policies. Things did not seem to get better with disagreements occurring in talks with North Korea and the US’ lack of interest in the growing Israeli-Palestinian peace process (Rogers, 2002). Many of the EU nations were lobbying for conflict prevention and were quick to negotiate peace with North Korea and the Middle East. EU members, such as Sweden, were expressing international social awareness and such awareness was impacting on EU policies. This awareness translated well to improved debt relief and international assistance. Such commitment exemplified the fact that the Kyoto protocols were insufficient to ensure international rescue and there was a need to make a stronger commitment towards arms control and towards strengthening a bio-weapons treaty (Higgott, 2003). This unilateralist doctrine was seen as early as the Carter administration when powerful right wing groups advocated the re-arming of the US based on perceived Soviet threats. These groups went on to serve during the Reagan administration (Higgott, 2003). They saw a bipolar world with international communism being a threat to US interests. At the end of the 1990s, the Cold war ended and international communism became less of a threat to US interests. However, the Bush administration still saw a threat from the international community and expressed that these threats were ‘still there’ (Rogers, 2002). In considering the above discussion, such unilateralist policies have clearly dictated international responses to US calls for cooperation and coordination. At present, the US is considered to be ambivalent in this regard because there have been no outright moves on its part to portray a more multilateral approach to international agreements. US Foreign Policy and the New World Order Interest groups have commented that the US is no longer the dominant nation that it once was. In the current world order, there are now three equal centres of influence: Washington, Brussels, and Beijing (Khanna, 2008). The EU’s influence in the international world order has risen to levels almost matching that of the US. Second world nations have also apparently risen to power in the face of their growing influence and impact on the international community. The three centres of influence are now racing with each other in order to win favour with these second world nations. These transitional second world nations include India, China, Singapore and other Asian nations and those in the Central European region (Khanna, 2008). America’s impact has now become less evident mostly due to the fact that the foreign aid budget is relatively small. In this regard, the US can still exert its military might but its ability to influence and reward allies are actually very limited. Some authors have pointed out the flaw of the US being stuck in the Cold War mindset. “While we pursue a ‘global war’ on terror, for example, the leaders of many other nations think we face a terrorist ‘challenge’ that calls for a carefully calibrated economic and diplomatic – as well as military – response” (Khanna, 2008). It can be argued that the blame for America’s decline is being placed on America itself – for its refusal to make more beneficial responses to aggressive issues. In addition, the US seems to have lost the capability to use the power it has. China is making substantial progress with its economic advancement and the EU impresses the world with its ability to gain the consensus of its members and applicants. The US seems to be more concerned with fighting more wars, pushing for free trade, and in allowing mass migration; but not in seeking improved lives for its citizens (Khanna, 2008). References: Arvanitopoulos, C. (2002), The Geopolitics of Oil in Central Asia, Institute of International Relations, viewed 17 March 2011 from http://groups.uni-paderborn.de/kowag/geoeconomics/pdf/tgooica.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations (1975) Multinational Oil Corporations and U.S. Foreign Policy - REPORT together with individual views, United States Senate, Washington, US Government Printing Office Conant, M. (1979), Access to energy, 2000 and after, Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press Hagel, C. (2004), A Republican Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, viewed 17 March 2011 from http://academic.marion.ohio-state.edu/vsteffel/web597/Hagel_RepublicanFP.pdf Heiss, M. (2009), Real men don’t wear pajamas: Anglo-American cultural perceptions of Mohammad Mossadeq and the Iranian Oil Nationalization Dispute, Ohio State Press, viewed 17 March 2011 from http://www.ohiostatepress.org/books/complete%20pdfs/hahn%20empire/09.pdf Higgott, R. (2003), American unilateralism, foreign economic policy and the 'securitisation' of globalization 'securitisation' of globalization, University of Warwick, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, Coventry, number 124, pp. 1-42 Khanna, P. (2008) New World Order: Why America is losing the race to influence the "second world,” Washington Post, viewed 17 March 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/21/ST2008032102526.html Oil - The origins of US foreign oil policy (n.d) American Foreign Relations, viewed 17 March 2011 from http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-The-origins-of-u-s-foreign-oil-policy.html Randall, S. (2005), United States foreign oil policy since World War I: for profits and security Stephen J. Randall, London: McGill-Queen's Press Rogers, P. (2002) If it's good for America, it's good for the world, Guardian.uk, viewed 17 March 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/27/usa.georgebush Rubenfeld, J. (2004) Commentary: Unilateralism and Constitutionalism, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1971 (2004) Saunders, B. (1996) The United States and Arab nationalism: the Syrian case, 1953-1960, New Jersey: Greenwood Publishing Group Tertzakian, P. (2006), A thousand barrels a second: the coming oil break point and the challenges facing an energy dependent world, USA: McGraw Hill Professional Transport Research Centre (2008) Oil dependence: is transport running out of affordable fuel? New York: OECD Publishing Walde, T. (2006) Reviewing Steve Randall, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, volume 9(1), pp. 1-9 Read More