Foreign relations of the United States

The United States of America have vast economical, political and military influence on a global scale, which makes the concepts and details of their foreign policies a subject of great interest and discussion around the world. Purposes recurringly mentioned and emphasized by U.S. officials are:\n* Protecting the safety and freedoms of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad\n* Promotion of peace, freedom, (most notably of speech and enterprise) and democracy in all regions of the world\n* Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth and thus improve living conditions everywhere\n* Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need

Table of contents

1 Diplomatic Relations 2 Allies 3 Criticism and responses 3.1 Cold War policies 4 Economic critics 5 International disputes 6 Illicit drugs 7 Military aid 8 Related topics 9 External links

Diplomatic Relations

\nThe United States has one of the largest diplomatic presences of any nation on earth. Almost every country in the world has both a U.S. embassy and an embassy of their own in Washington, DC. Only a few nations do not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States. They are:\n*Cuba\n*Bhutan\n*Iran\n*North Korea\n*Sudan\n*Somalia\n*Taiwan In pratical terms however, these lack of formal relations do not impede the US' communication with these nations. In the cases where no US diplomatic post exists, American relations are usually conducted via Canada, the United Kingdom, or another friendly third-party. In the case of the Republic of China, de facto relations are conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan. The U.S. maintains a Normal Trade Relations list and several countries are excluded from it, which means that their exports to the States are significantly more taxed.

Allies

\nThe United States is the founder of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 26-nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. The United States also has several "Major Non-NATO allies" which is a distinction given to certain states which are unable to join NATO for geographic reasons. Each non-NATO allied state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances. The designated Major Non-NATO allies are:

• Argentina \n*Australia \n*Bahrain\n*Egypt\n*Israel \n*Japan\n*Jordan\n*Kuwait\n*New Zealand \n*Pakistan\n*The Philippines \n*South Korea\n*Thailand

Criticism and responses

Critics of U.S. foreign policy tend to respond that these goals commonly regarded as noble were often overstated and point out contradictions between foreign policy rhetoric and actions:\n* The mention of peace as opposed to the long list of U.S. military involvements\n* The mention of freedom and democracy as opposed to the many former and current dictatorships that receive(d) U.S. financial or military support. \n* The mention of free trade as opposed to U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood and steel.\n* The mention of U.S. generosity as opposed to the low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP)

Cold War policies

Today, both much of the criticism and justification for many actions of U.S. foreign policy was formulated during the Cold War. Following World War II the government of the United States grew increasingly worried - some say paranoid - of the expansionist actions of the Soviet Union, and its support for Communist revolutions in the third world and beyond. Foreign policy makers of that time are usually quick to point out that this atmosphere of conflict with the Soviets created many situations in which the United States was apparently forced to compromise on some of the ideological policy objectives stated above. For example, American support for certain dictatorships was frequently condemned by critics as an apparent violation of the U.S.'s Wilsonian principles. However, policy makers would justify such support by stating that supporting a certain dictator was often necessary when he was the only stable ruler of a unstable country, or when the alternative to his rule would be a Soviet-sponsored Communist dictatorship. This was often dubbed the lesser of two evils principle.

Economic critics

So-called globalization critics, like the Attac movement, also oppose the notion, most notably spread by US politicians, and international economic organizations closely related to the USA, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, that selling state industries to private investors (privatization) would necessarily improve quality and lower prices of the goods produced by these industries, arguing that certain industries must remain publicly-owned to avoid abuse of private monopolies, and that certain countries had already seen an erosion in price-to-value ratio as the result of privatizations. It is also argued that the sale of public property often includes potentially massive corruption, e.g. underpriced "sell-out" of public assets in return of personal or political favors.

International disputes

\n*Maritime boundary disputes with Canada (Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Machias Seal Island)\n*US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay is leased from Cuba and only mutual agreement or US abandonment of the area can terminate the lease\n*Haiti claims Navassa Island\n*US has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other nation\n*Marshall Islands claims Wake Island.

Illicit drugs

\n*consumer of cocaine shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean\n*consumer of heroin, marijuana, and increasingly methamphetamines from Mexico\n*consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin\n*illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamines\n*drug-money-laundering center See also: War on Drugs

Military aid

The United States provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia.

Related topics

\n*Sino-American relations\n*U.S.-Canada relations\n*United States and the United Nations\n*Neoconservatism (United States)\n*List of U.S. Presidential Doctrines\n* Timeline of United States diplomatic history\n* Franco-U.S. relations

External links

\n*U.S. State Dept. Documentary: Foreign Relations of the United States\n*Timeline of U.S. diplomatic history\n* Introduction to U.S. foreign aid\n* Foreign aid by country