\u201cLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness\u201d are \u201cunalienable Rights\u201d\nand were central when the founders of the United States proclaimed\nindependence from Britain on 4 July 1776. For 250 years thereafter,\nWashington has consistently outlined the ideals of democracy, human\nrights, and fundamental freedoms as the primary foundation of US foreign\npolicy. However, US citizens are increasingly questioning whether their\ncountry remains true to the values that underpinned its founding. In\n2024, 72 per cent of respondents in a survey agreed with the statement\nthat \u201cdemocracy in the United States used to be a good example, but has\nnot been so in recent years.\u201d<\/p>\n
DW traced how the mission and strategy of US foreign policy have\nchanged over the past 250 years. The results show that America\nincreasingly relies on military might rather than diplomacy to impose\nits interests. Political scientists Monica Duffy Toft and Sidita Kushi\nidentified more than 500 US military interventions over the past 250\nyears. The data illustrates Washington\u2019s growing dependence on military\nintervention. \u201cIn the past, the United States still considered its\nrivals to act rationally. But after the events of 11 September, the\nbelief that the enemy acts based on reason appears to have faded,\u201d said\nKushi, an assistant professor at Mount Holyoke College.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe idea then became: \u2018If we cannot negotiate with the enemy, if\ndiplomacy is no longer effective, then all that remains is\nviolence\u2014namely the use of military force,\u2019\u201d Kushi said. \u201cWith the\nDepartment of Defense budget soaring and the State Department budget\ncontinuously shrinking after 9\/11, what happens is: if the only tool you\nhave is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.\u201d If Latin America was\nthe region most frequently targeted by US interventions since the early\n19th century, in recent decades that attention has shifted to Asia,\nincluding the Middle East. \u201cOur data shows a clear shift towards the\nMiddle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa as locations for\nvarious US interventions,\u201d Kushi said. \u201cMuch of this can be explained by\nthe global war on terror post-9\/11. Moreover, it also reflects America\u2019s\nability to project its power as the sole superpower. After the Cold War\nended, with continuously developing military capacity, America had the\nability to project power to various parts of the world while redefining\nits interests so that almost the entire world is seen as relevant to\nAmerican interests.\u201d<\/p>\n
Not only has the target region changed, but the purpose of\nintervention has also shifted. According to Kushi, the 1990s were an\n\u201cera of humanitarian intervention in US foreign policy\u201d, when national\ninterests were expanded to include the mission of confronting the\nworld\u2019s most serious humanitarian disasters, from genocide in the\nBalkans to famine in Somalia. \u201cMany interventions in our dataset show\nthat other countries indeed invited the United States to intervene\nmilitarily,\u201d she said. However, after the 1990s, especially since 2001,\nthe data compiled by Kushi and Toft shows that \u201cmaintaining or building\nthe authority of foreign regimes\u201d became one of the primary motives for\nUS military intervention.<\/p>\n
This year alone, there are two examples of US military intervention\naimed at removing foreign regimes: the abduction of Venezuelan President\nNicol\u00e1s Maduro and the launch of a war against Iran in February. There\nare also other objectives showing the opposite trend. In the early days,\nprotecting economic interests was the main reason for using military\nforce. However, since the end of World War II, the motives for\nintervention have shifted significantly. This does not mean economic\ninterests are no longer protected, just that they are no longer pursued\nthrough war. Based on the Measuring American Diplomacy project compiled\nby political scientists Calvin Thrall and Matt Malis, from the 1960s to\nthe 1980s the US government became increasingly active in signing trade\nagreements.<\/p>\n
\u201cDiplomats are very effective in boosting exports when they have\nadequate resources and personnel,\u201d said Thrall, an assistant professor\nof political science at Columbia University. \u201cThey are also highly\nskilled at negotiating investment agreements and resolving trade\ndisputes.\u201d According to Thrall, the United States tends to be less\nactive in building relationships with countries deemed not to have\nsignificant economic interests for Washington. \u201cCurrently, we do not\neven have ambassadors in countries like Bolivia, Pakistan, and Malawi.\nLooking at Africa as a whole, America\u2019s relations with countries there\nare often conducted inconsistently. Conversely, countries that are major\ndestinations for US exports or important for American multinational\ncorporations will always receive attention, whoever is in power.\u201d<\/p>\n
Data compiled by Thrall and Malis shows the number of new agreements\nmade by America has been continuously declining since the 1980s, under\nboth Republican and Democratic administrations. US presidents\nincreasingly prefer to use executive agreements\u2014direct deals with other\nheads of state that do not require US Congressional ratification\u2014over\nformal international treaties. However, the number of such agreements\nhas also steadily declined across various administrations, particularly\nin the last decade. This phenomenon coincides with another trend, namely\nthe increasing frequency with which the United States withdraws from\nmultilateral agreements. Thrall and his colleagues noted that.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/250-years-of-us-footprint-in-shaping-the-world-order-1782967974", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }