Freedom Is an Imperative Ideal in Western Culture - Essay Example

?Insert Foreign Policy Freedom Freedom is an imperative ideal in the Western culture and governance based on democratic principles upholds the aspect to the latter. The NSC 68 describes the value as a correlation of individuals or parties which is devoid of repression or intimidation; the lack of disabling rules for a certain group or person and the establishment of enabling environment; or the lack of lived situations of coercion, for example political coercion in the United States society. Whereas political liberty is usually misunderstood to mean the liberty from irrational external repression, it may also be used to connote the free enjoyment of rights, liberal aptitudes and likelihood of development, and the enjoyment of social rights. The idea can also encompass liberty from limitations on political activities or expression (Jong-Han 255-287). The idea of freedom in political circles is closely intertwined with the ideals of civil rights. Therefore, freedom can influence the American policies, by enabling the country to intervene in other countries where freedom of the people is in jeopardy. This often leads to US-led military action against dictatorial governments across the world, if diplomacy fails to guarantee the masses of their freedom. Equity Although inequality cannot be eliminated completely, all the members of the society should be treated the same way, before the law and by administration authorities. Nevertheless, in practice, persons with more economic muscle and education are likely to be better placed in political circles, thus often influence civil society. As a matter of fact, there may be an evenhanded political mechanism with hardly any significant levels of involvement, so long as all demographic segments and social divisions uniformly took part in the building of a society (Jong-Han 255-287). Then those who take part in the process would properly represent a section of the entire community. In view this, equity can influence the foreign policy of the United States by enhancing political justness in other countries where the federal government feels equity is hardly practiced, by increasing the population of individuals who take part in political activities and empowering civil society. When the United States encourages more people to take their destiny and the destiny of the country into their own hands through programs such as more awareness campaigns, underprivileged communities and the less educated achieve more say. Diversity According to Jong-Han (255-287), diversity is the expression used to explain political entities with participants who hold recognizable disparity in their lifestyles. It is notable that the expression implies the disparities in racial or tribal categories, age, sex, spiritual inclination, ideology, physical capacities, socioeconomic status, sexual inclination, gender identity, education, mental status, physical capacities, genetic qualities, behavior, elegance, or other recognizable attributes. In gauging human multiplicity, a variation index gauges the likelihood that any two neighbors, picked randomly, would have varied ethnic backgrounds. Diversity in this wisdom can influence the nature of United States foreign policy based on the need for a cultivation of tolerant societies which supports the different communities regardless of their unique inclinations or qualities. For instance, the country can urge other states to adopt gay legislations in order to guarantee the community of a place in the society and enhance their integration into the society (Wright 76-104) American foreign policy The United States foreign policy revolves around the manner in which the country relates with other states and establishes thresholds of correlation for its institutions, business organizations and citizens in particular. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990, the United States foreign policy became highly influential across the world, because the former was already a pale shadow of its former self, with only disparate nations to show. Soviet Union rivaled the United States for world’s superpower for more than four decades, before its disintegration. The global policy of the sole superpower country has been based on an economy valued at $15 trillion, which measures up to about 25 percent of world’s Gross Domestic Product, and a military budget of $711 billion, which amounts to almost half of global defense budget. With this huge defense budget, the United States has been engrossed in global wars of ‘exporting’ democracy to countries it believes are run by dictatorial regimes, and simultaneously leading allies in rooting out security threats across the world (Hoder and Suchy 69-85). The formally indicated objectives of the United States foreign policy, as stipulated in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the country include; establishing safer, more democratic, and economically prosperous societies for the advantage of the Americans and the local residents of foreign countries (Amirah-Fernandez, and Menendez 325-338). Moreover, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs indicates that a number of its objectives encompass; export regulations encompassing nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass destruction such as nuclear hardware and technology; issues relating to the promotion of commercial associations with foreign states and to protect American business interests in foreign jurisdictions; international commodity accords, and learning processes; and safeguarding of American citizens in foreign countries, including their expatriation if need be (Hoder and Suchy 69-85). United States foreign policy of playing the global hegemony in all spheres has been the subject of arguments and counterarguments both locally and in foreign quarters. As a result, the collapse of the Soviet Union has negatively impacted the once cordial associations between Washington and other countries. This has reduced the relations between weaker states and the US to more of an obligation that weaker states are required to fulfill rather than cultivating partnerships. Since 1990, the United States foreign policy led to its rise, thus assuming the position of the hegemonic non-colonial economic supremacy with wide influence in the larger world. Almost immediately, the country adopted new foreign policy measures aimed at containing terrorist threats, rather than restrict the expansion of Soviet expansion which had already dissolved. With official end to the almost five decades of entrenched diplomacy and armed struggle for global influence, new challenges faced United States policymakers. The country reaffirmed its support for liberal trade, safeguarding its national values and citizens, and a respect for human rights through capitalism (Jong-Han 255-287) Extended defense role To achieve these goals, the United States came up with the idea of establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an imperative military alliance, which is the most powerful in the world. The 28 member state alliance comprises of countries which occupy the Northern American region and the larger part of Europe. Under the military alliance, the United States is obliged to safeguard any member state that is under attack by a foreign state. Beginning in 1989, the country that would be the superpower also set up an imperative non-NATO relation status comprised of five countries, with its membership raised toward the end of the twentieth century. The September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States resulted in the rise in the number to 14 nations. The members have distinct ties with the United States, which range from different military and trading partnerships and agreements, aimed at sustaining the global security and economic prosperity (Wright 76-104). Following the close ties between the United States and the United Kingdom, the former is keen to maintain cordial relations based on imperative bilateral ties. The collapse of the Soviet led the US into forging alliances based on military intelligence sharing, implementation of military campaigns, nuclear weapons surveillance and elimination. Additionally, intelligence sharing among US allies is believed to be finer since 1990s and the country is keen to maintain the close relations (Hoder and Suchy 69-85). Conclusion Foreign policy of the United States changed after the fall of Soviet Union, from supporting a sequence of proxy conflicts in an effort to create a more secure and democratic world. Since 1991, the United States shifted its focus from upholding frosty relations to issuing separate diplomatic acknowledgment to the Russian Federation as well as other states which formed the Soviet before its disintegration. Today, global influence of the United States remains powerful but, in comparative basis, is experiencing a slump in terms of financial output compared to emerging powers, which fall under the Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) and the newly revitalized European Union. Significant challenges such as global warming, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and nuclear terrorism continue to define foreign policy of the United States. US authorities should, therefore capitalize on the pressing issues that affect the world by bringing into fore its major European partners who have relatively comparable concern for improving socio-political stability in developing countries, in order to mitigate terrorist threats and improve trade relations, as this is the key to enhancing peaceful growth and economic development. Works Cited Amirah-Fernandez, Haizam, and Menendez, Irene. Reform in Comparative Perspective: US and EU Strategies of Democracy Promotion in the MENA Region after 9/11. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 17.3 (2009): 325-338. Hoder, Lukas and Suchy, Petr. Bush doctrine in the Middle East the US foreign policy towards the Middle East during the George W. Bush presidency. Defense & Strategy, 11.1 (2011): 69-85. Jong-Han, Yoon. The Effect of US Foreign Policy on the Relationship Between South and North Korea: Time Series Analysis of the Post-Cold War Era. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11.2 (2011): 255-287. Wright, Glenn. Trade Policy as a Pressure Tool: The Case of Us-Bolivian Drug Policy. Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 5.2 (2010): 76-104. Read More