| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "IMPACT U S POLICIES NATION": |
|
|
Impact of U.S. Policies on the Nation's Economy, 2002.
A discussion on the effects of U.S. anti-terrorism campaigns on the economy of the United States.
740 words (approx. 3.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The following paper looks at the result of spending billions on security measures in the U.S.A. to combat terrorism. It discusses the ways in which the expenses of security measures affect the GDP and it assesses whether U.S. anti-terrorism policies impact significantly on the nation's economy.
From the Paper
"Bush may be faced with a puzzle. He may be tempted to imitate Reagan?s ?military Keynesianism?, by trying to make use of ?state funds? to get America out of recession. He has declared that ?$75 billion? would be diverted towards the economy of the nation. But ?military Keynesianism? might just provoke huge inflation that could lead to a crash later on. This might result in job losses and a decrease in trade and the working class will have to bear the consequences, as usual. (2) Though the American people may not be expected to be ?bold? enough, the American government is prepared to spend its finds on the fight against terrorism as well as the economic fight they have been pushed into."
| |
|
U.S. Policies Concerning OPEC, 2002.
A comprehensive analysis of the role of economic sanctions in U.S. foreign policy.
10,420 words (approx. 41.7 pages), 19 sources, APA, £ 147.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes how U.S. foreign policy has developed as the result of American efforts to influence the price and supply of oil in OPEC countries. Also examined are the impact of variations in the supply and price of oil on the U.S. economy, the 1970 oil crisis, the impact of the Persian Gulf War, and the current unrest in the Middle East in this context. A summary of the research is presented in the conclusion.
Outline
Major Players and Events Influencing U.S. Foreign Policy
Overview of Issues Related to Economic Sanctions
Overview of the Persian Gulf
Impact of the Persian Gulf War of U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
From the Paper
"Since the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, U.S. dependence on oil imports has risen to record levels, from 28 percent in 1973 to 48 percent in 1997 (?The 1973 Oil Embargo: What Have We Learned In the Last 25 Years?,? n. pag.). Through 1972, Americans had become accustomed to expanding energy consumption with minimal concerns about the constancy of supply or sharp price escalations. In 1973, however, expectations about energy supply changed dramatically. The turmoil started early in 1973, as customers experienced the first symptoms of something being wrong with electricity brown outs and rapidly rising prices for fuels and other necessities. Price controls and allocation systems not only failed to resolve these problems, they seemed to aggravate them. Most memorably, October brought an oil embargo by members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, cutting further into the supply of oil and elevating prices to levels previously thought impossible. Customers experienced lines and sometimes no fuel at gasoline stations. A year of bad news was punctuated in December, when the President announced that because of the energy crisis the lights on the national Christmas tree would not be turned on. Throughout the year, energy stayed at the forefront of public attention. Interruptions in energy supplies were also closely related to other issues of national importance-a weakening of the economy and a reassessment of America's strategic position in the world. From 1973 to the mid-1980's, prices continued at very high levels, in part because of a second oil shock in 1979-80. During this period, rapid progress was made in raising American oil production, reducing dependence on oil imports, and improving end-use efficiency. After the oil price collapse of the mid-1980's, however, prices retreated to more moderate levels, the pace of efficiency gains slowed, American oil production fell, and the share of imports rose. Other, more violent events in the Middle East, however, would soon create a new political situation in which the U.S. was to be forced to create foreign policy directly as a result of America?s need for oil."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2004.
Compares U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.
956 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 4 sources, APA, £ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the U.S. foreign policy towards Middle Eastern and Latin American countries before 9/11 and post 9/11. The foreign policy is analyzed, its inherent problems are highlighted, and a comparison of U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America is made.
From the Paper
"With all eyes turned toward Iraq and the Middle East, South America rarely makes the headlines in the United States. Except for perhaps tighter controls and security on U.S. borders and waterways since September 11th , it seems Latin foreign policies are not top priorities for Washington. However, recent events in October in Bolivia led to ?a massive mobilization of Indians and peasants?military crackdowns that left as many as 70 people dead?and led to the demise of the conservative Gonzalo S?nchez de Lozada government on Oct."
| |
|
Cuba and North Korea and U.S. Policy, 2006.
A look at the similarities in U.S. policy towards North Korea and U.S. policy towards Cuba.
853 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Through a historical examination of both North Korea and Cuba, this paper compares U.S. policy towards both countries, explaining the similarity in the policies and the reasons for that similarity. The paper compares significant political events in both countries and explains that U.S. policy towards these countries has been based on the goal of containing communism and the spread of nuclear weapons.
From the Paper
"As the political climate in Cuba changed, so did the United States' policy towards the country. In the period immediately following Cuba's independence, the United States dominated Cuba both economically and politically; this domination continued until the Castro-led Cuban revolution. The Castro government's first move was to buy back land from private companies to give to agrarians. The United States became upset because it felt that its land holdings were worth more than the Cuban government was willing to pay. The United States responded by placing a trade embargo on Cuba in 1960 and soon after broke off diplomatic relations entirely. Next, the United States sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion, an unsuccessful attempt to incite rebellion against Castro. The next major event in United States-Cuba history was the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, in which the United States "blockaded Cuba to force the USSR to withdraw their newly-installed MRBMs from the country." Cuba's close ally was the USSR, and after its fall in 1991, conditions in Cuba worsened. Today, the trade sanction still stands between the United States and Cuba, with an exception made for humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicine."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, £ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy?s Influence on Terrorism, 2002.
The paper discusses the influence that United States foreign policy has had on creating terrorism throughout the world.
4,405 words (approx. 17.6 pages), 24 sources, MLA, £ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that U.S. foreign policy within the last thirty years has had a significant influence in the rise of terrorism throughout the world. The writer cites U.S. involvement in domestic politics in many countries, military interventions, and pursing national interests in other countries regardless of the consequences of pursing those interests, as influential in enabling terrorist organizations. The paper claims that in order to stop the wave of terrorism throughout the world, the United States must stay clear from interfering with domestic political problems in many regions around the world and must stay away from pursuing military operations that are not in the national interests of United States.
Table of Contents:
U.S. Foreign Policy?s Influence with Terrorism
Defense against Terrorism
The Roots of Terrorism
State Support of Terrorism
War on Terrorism
Solutions to Terrorism
From the Paper
"As Ahid Aslam concentrated on the foreign policy priorities of the Bush Administration in his article, Robert Cutter from the institute for foreign policy in focus wrote an article titled ?The Anti-Terrorist Coalition: A New World Order Redux.? This article focuses on the possibility that the anti-terrorist coalition may incite terrorist groups to ruse up and take action against the coalition in order to break it up. The author concentrates on the possible negative effects of placing together an anti-terrorist coalition and having being lead by the United States. The author determines that as long as the United States continues to lead the anti-terrorist coalition, the coalition will only be serving U.S. interests on terrorism and not international interests. The author suggests that it should be the United Nations that should be leading the coalition and not the United States."
| |
|
Is U.S. Foreign Policy Moral?, 2008.
This paper discusses whether considerations of morality have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy.
1,127 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper looks at America's past foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union and Communism. The paper also discusses the war against terrorism today and reveals that the true incentive behind the war in Iraq may have been financial, although there were moral victories attained as a result. The paper concludes that while morality should certainly have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, in recent years, the financial goals of the United States seem to outweigh the altruistic ones.
Outline:
Introduction
The Past and U.S. Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy and Communism
Morality, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism
Moral Victories May be the Outcome of Financial Gain
Conclusion
From the Paper
"United States foreign policy has always been about political relationships for financial gain combined with moral idealism (Fox 2000). Therefore, morality has played a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, and should continue to do so. Whether this "morality" is genuine is questionable, and lately the U.S. has appeared to many to be the equivalent of a greedy bully, seeking financial benefits with no care for assisting the impoverished, oppressed, and/or those who may benefit from a morality driven U.S. foreign policy. These U.S. foreign endeavors are done under the guise of morality, which often result in more harm than good for the citizens of nations that such U.S. foreign policy is choosing to target, which is immoral in its very nature."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
An overview of the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and whether it can be considered morally justifiable.
2,462 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the quagmire of Middle East politics and how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy in that region of the world. The paper discusses whether U.S. objectives and its foreign policy in the Middle East are morally justifiable and concludes that they are because the goal of the U.S. is primarily one of helping people of the third world countries, while at the same time protecting her own interests.
From the Paper
"As far as the scourge of terrorism is concerned, it is a sad but true fact that no leader has managed to succeed in getting to the very root of the problem and thereby finding an appropriate solution to it. There may be a satisfactory explanation for this fact; it may be that the very nature of terrorism being what it is: quite unpredictable and also very asymmetrical, it is virtually impossible to find an adequate solution to the problem, and the underlying issues are so many and so widespread that it is an unattainable goal to hope to find an ideal solution to combat 'terrorism'. In fact, it can be safely stated that the West has actually and virtually outstayed its welcome in most parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, rich in oil as it is, and the leaders in those parts of the world, fuelled by their innate greed, grew from being mere allies of the West to real and true despots, and this because of the one thing that all the world needs: Oil. In fact, Osama bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein were allies of the USA in both the US war against Afghanistan as well as in the US war against Iraq respectively. (Going Tactical)"
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions, 2004.
An examination of whether U.S. foreign policy decisions are more beneficial to the United States itself or to the world it is aiming to 'protect'.
2,451 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the question, "Is the U.S. seeking to protect its own national security or simply to secure its own national interests throughout the world by having a unilateral approach to foreign policy decisions?" The paper uses two main sources as the basis for the analysis of this question: "Logic of American Foreign Policy" by Patrick Callahan, published in 2004; and the fifth edition of "American Foreign Policy" by Glenn Hastedt, published in 2003/4. These two main sources are introduced, in depth, and the frameworks that arise from these books are then used to frame an analysis of the question posed in this paper; supplementary examples are taken from recent political involvements of the U.S. in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and China. The final section of the paper, therefore, looks at the question from the viewpoint of the book reviews, with supplementary information where necessary.
From the Paper
"Essentially, Callahan?s book looks, in depth, at six facets (or ?logics?) of the role the United States plays on the world stage: hegemonism, liberalism, realism, isolationism, liberal internationalism, and anti-imperialism. The book looks at each of these logics, and essentially traces the development of these logics through the study of the relevant policy documents and historical responses to these policies; a critical summary is then given for each logic. Three case studies are then presented at the end of the main body of the text: the debate following US intervention in Kosovo; the debate surrounding the 1990 Chinese trade debate, and the events following the events of September 11th 2001. These issues will be discussed, when relevant, in the present paper."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Failures in Afghanistan, 2005.
This paper analyzes U.S. goals in South Asia and the extent to which the U.S. has succeeded.
1,999 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Given the four stated objectives for the U.S. in Afghanistan, as articulated by President Bush, this paper critically examines whether these four central goals have been completed, ultimately concluding that Afghanistan has been a U.S. foreign policy blunder. Outline Background Statement of Purpose in Afghanistan Outsourcing of the Battle of Tora Bora Conclusions and Analysis
From the Paper
"In many perceptions, the Afghan campaign and that country's subsequent conquest stand today as a stunning success in America's "war on terror." This claim hardly receives challenges or qualifications, for the mixture of special operations and conventional warfare utilized by the U.S. in South Asia won the praise of self- congratulatory military planners and administration officials (though in no way as self-indulgent as the infamous premature posting of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" behind President Bush on May 1, 2003, following the end of combat operations in Iraq). Further distracting from this claim is the incomparably more controversial Iraq War of March 2003, initiated less than eighteen months later. "
| |
|
Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy in Southern Africa, 2006.
This paper looks at the U.S. foreign policy towards Southern Africa.
2,007 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 10 sources, MLA, £ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer claims that the United States' foreign policy towards Southern Africa has long been couched between the Cold War paradigm and hasty decisions of self-service. The writer discusses how while ostensibly the African prospect - replete with brewing racial concerns and potential economic value - was left to European guise, the United States had already witnessed a long history of being drawn into the continent. This paper looks at the U.S. policies regarding South Africa from the 1960s and through the Reagan regime.
From the Paper
"Since the middle of the last century, the United States has parroted a secondary role in the international aspects of the African political process, stepping aside for Mother England and her European peers to address their former colonies while they pushed through their final stages of independence. While actual attainment of the freedoms for which they fought lay far on the horizon, the bloody warfare that burned the nebulous concept of 'liberty' into the African South was hot on the minds of political leaders far beyond the confines of local tensions. Real conversation about the developing 'African Problem' began in Washington during Eisenhower's second term (1957-1961), when the National Security Council developed a proposal for the division of labor in the developing world - notably, the United States would gain umbrella control for the Latin American region, while Europe would serve as the satellite leader for post-colonial Africa."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy, dealing with nuclear arms reduction; unilateralism versus multilateralism and the role of multilateralism to serve American interests; and presidential power in making foreign policy.
| |
|
U.S. Policy toward Israel, 1992.
A history of the policies, Bush and Israeli policy, a critical overview of the Israel and U.S. relationship including the need for a change in U.S. stance toward Israel.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 10 sources, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"It is difficult to imagine a picture of President Bush laughing with known strongman and terrorist supporter President Hafez al-Assad of Syria (Tumulty, 1990, p. A20). Yet it's just these types of images that have acted to change the relationship between the United States and long-time ally Israel. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the factors in U.S. policy towards Israel, the causes and effects that policy has within the United States, and ultimate effect on Israel.
In a time when the United States needs friends in the Middle East to stabilize its position, Israel in general remains silent, even defensive (Wicker, 1990, p. A27). It has rejected any attempt to link peace talks between Iraq and the United States with Israel's right to the West Bank in Gaza. While the United States supports this position, there have been other shakeups..."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Since 1991, 2006.
A critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991.
3,419 words (approx. 13.7 pages), 16 sources, MLA, £ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author takes a critical look at the changing U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1991. He examines how prior to 1991, American policy was aimed primarily at using some countries led by Israel as a bulwark against communism in the Cold War years. He highlights that with the end of a bipolar world there was a radical shift in American policy towards the Middle East. The paper examines how this was brought about by the threat America saw to its most vital interest -oil in the region as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; at the same time, with the sudden demise of the hitherto counterbalancing factor, the Soviet Union, the stage was set for a decisive policy. In conclusion, the author argues that the American policy of planting democracy in societies that do not have the necessary preconditions and institutional frameworks of accepting and absorbing the system could mean risking backlashes and other actions.
From the Paper
"In the absence of the Soviet factor, American policy in the Middle East has become more intrusive; American policy could have a positive impact if its moves towards establishing its policy are perceived as being salutary. A prime test case of this policy is the way its role is seen in the Israeli-Palestine issue. (Cantori, 1994, p. 452) The immediate years after the Gulf War led to a hyperactive engagement in the region under president Bill Clinton, for whom resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a principal goal. In his presidency, America assumed the role of an 'honest broker' in bringing about a peaceful settlement of issues bedevilling the region. However, before substantial headway was made, a new regime took guard under Bush Jr., under whom the same vigour was not enforced. American interventionism, which became low-key under the new dispensation, has led to suspicion in Arab quarters that America, with its uncompromising tilt towards Israel, has not been the 'honest broker' that it promised to be."
|
|
|
