American Foreign Policy: Near, Medium, and Long-Term Strategy for the 21st Century

On the one hand, the United States has always been on the top of proliferating democracy, freedom of speech, equality, and transparency the key dimensions of prosperous co-existence of citizens all over the world. Apparently, this is one of the most persuasive arguments why the United States should become the world’s leader that can guide the economies across the global environment and introduce the corresponding shifts in social and political lives of other countries. On the other hand, the excessive influence on other world’s regions could be detrimental for the country itself that should be more concerned with the welfare of the U.S. citizens (Bremmer). As a result, there is the question of whether it is viable to consider the U.S. foreign policy as an international or domestic condition. With reliance on recent debates and discussions, it could be stressed that the current U.S. foreign policies are unsustainable, and a range of disruption and failure signals are taking place. At this point, it is necessary to introduce a new strategy that can prevent the degradation of global and domestic conditions because of the excessive engagement with foreign affairs which could become a reason for the destruction of the domestic economy.

The international system undergoes significant challenges and problems, but not in terms of mass terrorist attacks or unequal rights, but in terms of ecological catastrophe that the global world is currently facing. In this respect, Doherty ultimately believes that the U.S. economic engine could not stand the opportunities and threats of the current circumstances. Specifically, the author explains, designed explicitly to exploit postwar demand for suburban housing consumer goods, and reconstruction materials for Europe and Japan, the conditions that allowed it to succeed expired by the early 1970s (Doherty). Therefore, its obsolete policies are being supported by the adjusted monetary policy and debt accumulation at household, federal, and corporate levels. However, with the decline of interest rates of the Federal Research, the U.S debt exceeding its income could lead to a serious economic disaster. With reliance on the enumerated problems, the task of the American government is to introduce a new strategy that could reduce the disaster’s threat at a global level. In fact, the United States does not experience a business decline; instead, it can be referred to as the contained depression (Doherty). This specifically concerns the 2008 financial crisis, which led to the debt crisis all over businesses and households. Incomes decreased to the lowest levels of corporate and consumer debt, further resorting to high levels of unemployment.

With reliance on the above-presented fact, it is evident that the United States positions itself as the international system which affects other economies all over the world. Such a trend has been traced since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Similarly to the above-presented assumption Lindsay, Chair, Daalder advise, for the United States, a grand strategy is a generation’s plan to create the global conditions necessary for the country to pursue the great purposes forth in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Such a position defines the broader path for the country which must take advantage of the history and former relationship based on the principles of self-government, democracy, and isolationism. Hence to integrate a new international system, the country should not be fully engaged in the world’s policy, challenges, and opportunities just to improve the situation in general. Such a position would not contribute to the welfare of the U.S. economy, because negligence and total focus on foreign relationship deprive the American government of the chance to strengthen its reputation and position in the world.

Since the United States is known as a free and democratic country, the principles of freedom, equality, and democracy should be the pillars and primary conditions for engaging in the emerging international system.

The fact that the United States has introduced a completely new direction in terms of its foreign policies is absolutely undeniable. The first step for integrating into the new international system is to focus on the West, turning it in the globe’s most democratic and stable zone and combining principles with power. According to Brzezinski, the task of American leaders is to impose Western principles of development, the basis for which is life in increasing tolerance and freedom, leading to the steady emergence of democratic culture (99). At the same time, there should be a gradual engagement into the economically promising and conflicting East for the purpose of establishing a fruitful Union based on embracing all elements of the Asian market and eliminating the confrontation between China, India, and Japan.

The gradual integration of the United States into the world’s tandem of policy should take into consideration the constantly changing marketing conditions, which significantly differ from the one which could be noted in the past century. Specifically, there is a tangible difference between the upheaval feature of the first part of the twenty-first century to the historic times with reliance on the countries which were included in the category, enjoying the economic privileges, and elaborating on the new schemes of institutionalization (Cooper and Flames 945). In this respect, the emphasis should be specifically placed on BRICS, the new tandem of rising economies which include Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa. The alliance shares common values in an attempt to establish new principles and rules of foreign politics. In opposition, there is also another alternative grouping, which is called IBSA in which China and Russia are not included. However, BRICS presents more holistic and full-embracing policies that rely on the synergy of sovereignty and solidarity, combined together with the conceptual realism and interdependence at an international level (Cooper and Flames 947). The major problem of the power balance is the possibility of such an alliance to mobilize the principle and enhance the network power in the light of other alliance and the world’s leaders. Under these circumstances, the United States should also be aware of the newly emerging international unions which could be respected and considered in order to establish a trustful relationship at a global level.

The U.S.’s central challenge for the recent several decades consists of revitalizing itself, placing an emphasis on the West, and striking the balance with the East to accommodate the global status of the Asian sector. As a short term strategy, the government should start with introducing its tolerance and solidarity with the newly emerged alliances, which are often composed of a mix of Western and Eastern markets for the purpose of proliferating new products and arranging new partnerships. Such unions lead to the assimilation of the previously accepted principles of marketing and the world’s economies, which now turn into the tolerance and acceptance of cultural differences.

Apart from the shift in terms of the world’s alliances, groupings, and unions, there are also international organizations whose reputation and privilege should be respected, even by such an influential player as the United States. They should align with those rules and principles in an attempt to contribute to the world’s environmental security and fight with terrorist attacks in the light of the recent disturbances in France, Germany, and Turkey. The United Nations is one of such influential organization which can create serious challenges for the world’s possession plans of the U.S. government (Curran and Fraser 2). Nonetheless, the United States should make great efforts to establish a partnership with international organizations to adjust to their principles in a way that they could further gain confidence in their own position. This could be positioned as a medium-term strategy of the United States on the way of gaining authority among other world’s economies.

Previously, the U.S. foreign policy was recognized as the one which was based on global primacy. However, such a tendency is not welcomed in the world because it imposes significant pressure on other successful developing and newly emerged economies in the world. The recent experiences and events, such as the 9/11 terror attacks, the 2003 Iraq War, do not contribute in any way to the positive reputation of the United States in the world. In fact, aggressive policies only contributed to the escalation of terrorism. Furthermore, due to such principles, the United States is often recognized as a hegemon, a state that exercises an influence on other societies and states. However, such a principle and strategic orientation are no longer effective (Hook 4). What is more important is that the previous experience emphasized the necessity to focus on securing the homeland and inventing new security plans for improving the economic and political spheres of life (Kaufman 14). As such, the governmental authorities often exaggerate the attention on the part of other economies, striving to integrate their democratic principles, which do not often coincide with the principles of other regions in terms of cultural and political acceptance. Therefore, there should be a greater tolerance to the partnerships and unions in the world. A tender approach to the currently existing economies would be the best way of understanding the international system and the new principles of global cooperation.

The major challenge for the U.S. foreign policies lies in the decline of the primacy in the world, as well as an inability to accept this fact. Specifically, Hook explains, the nation’s popularized politics have become so entrenched that solving domestic problems and conducting foreign policy with a united front has become impossible (7). Such a position is also being supported by many journalists and scientists who explored the pitfalls of U.S. foreign policies. Despite the fact that many other research support the fact that the U.S. foreign policy could still maintain its world’s primacy for many years, there is still a threat that such aggressive expansion will no longer be attractive for the current, tolerant, and divergent economies.

In fact, the challenges to U.S. foreign policies could be split into four categories; the first one is associated with previous experiences and challenges. The second category focuses on the U.S. government’s historical experience and previous foreign reforms, many of which ignored most of the moral principles. The third group of problems relates to the nation’s tight association with economic globalization and expansion, which isolates the economies from the world even more. Finally, the nation encounters unpredictable challenges on the part of international terrorism, which directly correlated with 9/11 events. Such challenges must be considered in detail for avoiding mistakes made in the past and focusing on the new changes and modifications. Most of the challenges could also be associated with the American’s global orientation and personal feeling of superiority over the world. In reality, such a position is no longer popular, since the emphasis is being currently placed on the analysis of the Asian market, which has become more attractive for European countries.

With regards to the above-presented challenges, it should be stressed that there should be a new ad-hoc policy that could provide solutions to the above-presented challenges. Certainly, there could be some organizing principles, but the major part of strategic elements should confine to the assessment of negative experiences and pitfalls in its policy of globalization. One should recognize, however, that the United States is regarded as a sustainable power that relies on the degree to which others believe that the U.S. interests are not the only issues that are pursued by the American government. With a flashback to the past, it could be seen that the United States made some efforts for creating new security structure during World War II, such as NATO and United Nations, as well as promote development, recovery, and success to the Marshall Plan, Trade Acts, and many other systems. These institutions amplified American influence because they also create beneficial conditions for other economies involved. Hence, it could still be stressed out that the American economy could also be fruitful for other states, engaged in the world’s projects.

Top 10 writers

Your order will be assigned to the most experienced writer in the relevant discipline. The highly demanded expert, one of our top 10 writers with the highest rate among the customers.

Hire a top writer

While focusing on the long-term goals of a grand strategy, one could not ignore the globalization process, which embraces economic, cultural, political, and environmental dimensions. In the course of U.S history, the grand strategy has been presented on the top of two edges, Fortress and Empire America, possessing the image of an empire and governing people and lands beyond the United States. Constitutions contradict the major principles of American self-government and democracy. However, isolation imposes certain threats to security commerce and values. In order to meet the presented challenges, it is essential to focus on the new global principles and redesign the obsolete rules. To enlarge on the issue, the country should place its own homeland policy for the purpose of establishing a firm position and safe ground for the U.S citizens. In other words, the United States should lead the international transition to sustainable development.

While some world capitals and powers have been warning the dangers of the time, it is evident that these efforts require advanced thinking regarding the modern international system, which requires a sort of rational leadership and hard-nosed geopolitics, which is possible to deliver. Starting with a homeland, the domestic policy will provide progression and consistency to its foreign policies. As a result of such a solution, it will be possible to transfer to sustainable prosperity, deriving from increased demand (Kaufman 45). While doing this, America should further establish a new global partnership for the purpose of adopting a new institutional order. The logic of the partnership and environment should be implemented by suppressing the greater force of self-interest. Specifically, the United States should work together with its partners to cooperate, verify, and forge a durable transition to the new possession. In the course of the transition, America should work on enhancing and strengthening partners, providing major security assurance. The political obstacles could change it through a process of self-development and determination. The global transition should remain secure and open. The sovereignty, however, should only be confined to the responsibility for security and protection.

In conclusion, it should be stressed that the United States is a powerful economy, which has had a tangible influence on the international system by promoting personal interests and establishing an alliance. However, its strategy should change from the imperial one, ignoring the principle of global primacy to a new grand strategy, which, first of all, focuses on domestic policy improvement. This ad hoc strategy must place all of the domestic issues in order, which is a short-term strategy. The middle-term strategy focuses on seeking and accepting the new partnerships, which further allow the United States to redesign its concept of global possession. These changes are vital for improving the overall situation in the world.