U.S. National Interests and Goals Articulated After World War II
After World War II, an international agenda was established by United States President George Washington to deal with Soviet Union that emerged as both geopolitical and ideological rival. This was a strategy was meant to articulate American interests throughout the Cold War. The major strategy was seen as “as one designed to foster a world environment in which the American system can survive and flourish'' (Ambrosio 62). These interests were based on the fact that the stability of America highly depended on the world order. Americans believed that it had the capacity to develop a healthy international community and come up with policies that favored most countries. However, from this understanding, it is evident that America was developing these strategies and policies in order to deal with their key rival; Soviet Union. They saw Soviet Union as a threat (Janice 29). Therefore, the policies were mainly established to safeguard American interests and ensure that it was at the top of the world. In fact, the policies had nothing to do with the good of other countries in the world. It was determined to establish a new world order for the benefit of Americans.
President Bill Clinton asserted that America had a duty to ensure there is “a just, enduring and ever-more democratic peace in the world'' (Ambrosio 56). Nevertheless, American itself was under threat of Soviet Union. That is why cold war took a long period of time as the two rivals were always ready for attack. For instance America is highly criticized for its military intervention in the former Yugoslavia for lack of humanitarianism. This evidently showed their interests of safeguarding their powers in the name of upholding international set principles and agendas. Therefore, the argument that United States was establishing a new world was not aimed at benefiting all states in the world. It was meant to guard its vital interests.
Some of the principles established by United States include; punishing aggression, preserving the inviolability of borders as well as avoiding any form of instability in the world. Therefore, the American foreign policies were mainly driven by the world view. However, Americans interests were themselves endangered by various events that were taking place in the world such as the Balkans. Indeed, the critics argue that these policies were national but not international. In this case, the American security was endangered by events that even took place in areas that did not have strategic value to the state. In 1966, John McNaughton, the chief aid of the defense secretary stated that, “it takes some sophistication to see how Vietnam automatically involves our vital interests'' (Janice 36). The purported U.S interest and goals for the world are coughed out in the case of Vietnam. This evidently shows that America was only concerned with the welfare of its borders and pursuit of the world order to promote its interests and goals. On the contrary, Americans used military to intervene in various states such as Vietnam where issues to do with humanitarianism still raises eye brows even today (Ambrosio 245). Apparently, the foreign policy is seen by the elites as a marginal policy in view of various crises in the world.
On one hand, American’s foreign policy to mitigate the world order to safeguard various states was a good thing. On the other hand, Americans wanted to ensure that they spread democracy in the world and prevent Soviet Union’s ideologies from spreading further (Smith 78). This shows that America was acting in their interests as the world superpower.
U.S president, Clinton feared that increased instability in countries such as Yugoslavia and Indochina would spread to other countries and consecutively affect United States. Therefore, United States believed that it should lead in building a world order that would help to shape their goals and values. Clinton asserted that, “we will miss an opportunity to create a more democratic and stable world'' (David 121). In particular President Clinton was in effort to protect his administration. That is the reason why he could authorize military intervention in unstable countries in the name of safeguarding world order to protect his state’s values. American policies were bipolar with those of Soviet Union. Towards the end of cold war, the confrontation between democracy and dictatorship was facing a resolution with America being on the winning side. United States reaffirmed its leadership and superiority in the world. It also expressed its concern for other emerging alliances such as NATO during the era (Smith 96). However, the end of cold war signaled America’s continuance on its security obligations especially in Europe and East Asia.
In conclusion, it is evident from the above analysis that U.S. national interests and goals articulated after World War II are double edged. This is due to the fact that these interests were established mainly to safeguard U.S interests and not what was purported as promoting the welfare of Europe and East Asia. In a nutshell, U.S was in effort to establish world order that made it possible to protect its borders and articulate its goals. Indeed, U.S dominated security and economic arrangements in most parts of the world. Washington worked towards containing his key enemies; Soviet Union. Despite the fact that America played a great role in maintaining peace after the world II, it can be argued that America also benefitted as it was able to articulate and protect its interest and goals.
Works Cited
David M. and Anderson Paul. "Ethnic Lobbies and US Foreign Policy." Lynne Rienner Publishers. 2009. Print
Janice Terry. "U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Role of Lobbies and Special Interest Groups." Pluto Press. 2005. Print
Ambrosio, Thomas. "Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy." Praeger Publishers. 2002. Print
Smith, Tony. "Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy." Harvard University Press. 2000. Print
