250 Years of US Footprint in Shaping the World Order

“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are “unalienable Rights” and were central when the founders of the United States proclaimed independence from Britain on 4 July 1776. For 250 years thereafter, Washington has consistently outlined the ideals of democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms as the primary foundation of US foreign policy. However, US citizens are increasingly questioning whether their country remains true to the values that underpinned its founding. In 2024, 72 per cent of respondents in a survey agreed with the statement that “democracy in the United States used to be a good example, but has not been so in recent years.”

DW traced how the mission and strategy of US foreign policy have changed over the past 250 years. The results show that America increasingly relies on military might rather than diplomacy to impose its interests. Political scientists Monica Duffy Toft and Sidita Kushi identified more than 500 US military interventions over the past 250 years. The data illustrates Washington’s growing dependence on military intervention. “In the past, the United States still considered its rivals to act rationally. But after the events of 11 September, the belief that the enemy acts based on reason appears to have faded,” said Kushi, an assistant professor at Mount Holyoke College.

“The idea then became: ‘If we cannot negotiate with the enemy, if diplomacy is no longer effective, then all that remains is violence—namely the use of military force,’” Kushi said. “With the Department of Defense budget soaring and the State Department budget continuously shrinking after 9/11, what happens is: if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” If Latin America was the region most frequently targeted by US interventions since the early 19th century, in recent decades that attention has shifted to Asia, including the Middle East. “Our data shows a clear shift towards the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa as locations for various US interventions,” Kushi said. “Much of this can be explained by the global war on terror post-9/11. Moreover, it also reflects America’s ability to project its power as the sole superpower. After the Cold War ended, with continuously developing military capacity, America had the ability to project power to various parts of the world while redefining its interests so that almost the entire world is seen as relevant to American interests.”

Not only has the target region changed, but the purpose of intervention has also shifted. According to Kushi, the 1990s were an “era of humanitarian intervention in US foreign policy”, when national interests were expanded to include the mission of confronting the world’s most serious humanitarian disasters, from genocide in the Balkans to famine in Somalia. “Many interventions in our dataset show that other countries indeed invited the United States to intervene militarily,” she said. However, after the 1990s, especially since 2001, the data compiled by Kushi and Toft shows that “maintaining or building the authority of foreign regimes” became one of the primary motives for US military intervention.

This year alone, there are two examples of US military intervention aimed at removing foreign regimes: the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the launch of a war against Iran in February. There are also other objectives showing the opposite trend. In the early days, protecting economic interests was the main reason for using military force. However, since the end of World War II, the motives for intervention have shifted significantly. This does not mean economic interests are no longer protected, just that they are no longer pursued through war. Based on the Measuring American Diplomacy project compiled by political scientists Calvin Thrall and Matt Malis, from the 1960s to the 1980s the US government became increasingly active in signing trade agreements.

“Diplomats are very effective in boosting exports when they have adequate resources and personnel,” said Thrall, an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. “They are also highly skilled at negotiating investment agreements and resolving trade disputes.” According to Thrall, the United States tends to be less active in building relationships with countries deemed not to have significant economic interests for Washington. “Currently, we do not even have ambassadors in countries like Bolivia, Pakistan, and Malawi. Looking at Africa as a whole, America’s relations with countries there are often conducted inconsistently. Conversely, countries that are major destinations for US exports or important for American multinational corporations will always receive attention, whoever is in power.”

Data compiled by Thrall and Malis shows the number of new agreements made by America has been continuously declining since the 1980s, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. US presidents increasingly prefer to use executive agreements—direct deals with other heads of state that do not require US Congressional ratification—over formal international treaties. However, the number of such agreements has also steadily declined across various administrations, particularly in the last decade. This phenomenon coincides with another trend, namely the increasing frequency with which the United States withdraws from multilateral agreements. Thrall and his colleagues noted that.