US foreign policy
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:
- Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise) and democracy in all regions of the world
- 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
- Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need
| Table of contents |
|
2 Economic critics 3 Related articles 4 External links |
Critics of US 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:
Criticism and responses
Many of the ideals of current US foreign policy were formulated during the Cold War peroid. Following World War 2 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 US' 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.
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.Economic critics