| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "MIDDLE EAST FOREIGN POLICIES": |
|
|
The Middle East and Foreign Policies, 2005.
A discussion on the effects on foreign policy after the discovery of oil reserves in the Middle East.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 4 sources, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper claims that it was not until the discovery that the Middle East was rich with oil reserves that the countries of the United States, England, France and the Soviet Union became significantly involved in the region. It explains that it was with this discovery, however, that foreign policies were no longer about mere relations with countries, as much as they were about protecting oil interests in countries that brought them riches. It contends that when oil became the most prominent factor for these nations their loyalties to one another were tested, their goals were altered and tensions with the Middle East became inevitable.
From the Paper
"It was not until the discovery that the Middle East was rich with oil reserves that the countries of the United States, England, France, and the Soviet Union became significantly involved in the region. It was with this discovery, however, that foreign policies were no longer about mere relations with countries, as much as they were about protecting oil interests in countries that brought them riches. When oil became the most prominent factor for these nations their loyalties to one another were tested, their goals were altered, and tensions with the Middle East became inevitable. United States foreign policy in the Middle East became significant in the 1920s due to the interest in oil that was promising in the region. Standard Oil and Texaco, two American oil companies, won bids to begin the exploration for oil in Saudi Arabia in the early 1930s, finally ..."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
Examines America's foreign policy in the Middle East since 1991.
2,764 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 17 sources, APA, £ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper critically assesses the impact of U.S. foreign policy on the Middle East since 1991. It explores how the post-Cold War global order affects Middle East politics and how the conflict in the Middle East affects the 'New World Order'.
Table of Contents:
Part I: Summary
Part II: Background to and Nature of American Policy in the Middle East since 1991
Part III: Impact of American Policy in the Middle East
Part IV: Conclusion.
From the Paper
"America's policy of coercive appropriation of the region's only major resource has had another parallel, though highly profound impact. In order to break free from what the countries of the region perceive as the American stranglehold over their resources, many countries have started cooperating with each other to exploit the oil-rich Caspian region. Based on the idea of excluding America from the pipeline grid, this brings several countries from even outside the periphery of the Middle East in close ties with each other. This could spell a total alteration of the geo-strategic dynamics of the region."
| |
|
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, £ 52.95
»
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)"
| |
|
American Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2002.
A look at the history of the relationship between the Middle East and the Western World.
1,454 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 9 sources, MLA, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the history of foreign policy in the Middle East. It goes into the vast differences between cultures of the Arab world and cultures of the rest of the world and compares them in a global environment. Terms, such as globalization, tribalism, and imperialism are discussed and used to compare relations between the Middle East and the Western world. The paper also goes into current trends in foreign policy toward the Middle East. It has become more manipulating than helpful. The people of the Middle East still suffer, despite the efforts of the United States. In fact, the United States government is more concerned with maintaining a balance of power between Middle Eastern nations than maintaining the integrity of human rights. This paper places all of this content into an organized display.
From the Paper
"The events that are occurring at this very time in the Middle East are grim. Every place one looks, there is a violation of human rights, someone being killed, a war going on, or a level of poverty exists that an American could not even comprehend. Throughout the beautiful landscapes, warlords and military dictators have taken over countries and the populations live in fear. In the news, Americans see huge crowds cheering when the US flag is burnt, and the president being hung. After September 11, 2001, American children could see Arab children on television cheering at the disaster. The roots of this Arab rage lead right back to American foreign policy in the region."
| |
|
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, £ 66.95
»
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."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy: Anti-Americanism in the Middle East, 2001.
2,430 words (approx. 9.7 pages), 14 sources, £ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the origins of hatred in the Middle East linking it to the U.S. Foreign Policy. The author cites examples of US involvement in the region -- emphasizing the US's bias towards Israel over its neighboring countries, Jordan, Egypt etc.
From the Paper
"It is said that U.S. Foreign Policy is to blame for widespread anti-Americanism in the Middle Eastern nations and regions. Major policy critics and politicians for instance Zunes, Chomsky, Telhami, and Blum brought up many important issues that are directly linked to the foreign policy. Political and military actions taken by the United States in the past raised much disapproval and hate in the Muslim world population and planted a cause for the formation of Islamic extremist groups and their followers."
| |
|
Foreign Policy towards the Middle East, 2007.
This paper explains what must be the goals of the U.S. administration's future Middle Eastern policy.
1,247 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer maintains that the the goals of future U.S. Middle Eastern policy should be peace, the promise of a new United States image in the region, and greater independence from the nations that would cause harm. The writer then argues that the three main goals of the next administration should and must be to begin to bring the current conflict in Iraq to a successful or at least manageable political and diplomatic solution rather than a military conclusion, to facilitate new negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians and finally to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The writer concludes that diplomacy and acting multilaterally must be the goal, both of the U.S. policy in its phased withdrawal from Iraq and also in continuing to strive to broker an effective peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
From the Paper
"At present, Iraq is a failed state and American military policy is a failed policy. The Iraqi government cannot protect its people, deliver services, collect revenues, or administer its laws. Renegade Iraqi militias are the real legal powers. Embedding more U.S. troops will simply result in further U.S. causalities. A diplomatic solution is the only hope."
"The goal of the next administration must be to create a representational Iraqi government over the next four years that is able to exert control over its oil reserves, force the militias to transfer military power to the state regime, and enforce minority rights. In exchange for turning over arms there will be amnesty for all combatants, to avoid diverting important resources into show trials that will only further divide the nation, as did the trial and execution of the former dictator Saddam Hussein."
| |
|
U.S. and Mid-East Foreign Policy, 2003.
A discussion of why American foreign policy towards the Middle East is questionable.
3,200 words (approx. 12.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, £ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Outlines the events leading up to the September 11th attacks, covering the U.S.'s new dependency on oil after WWI, the creation of the Israeli state, U.S. involvement in Iran, U.S. involvement in Iraq during the 80s, and the devastating sanctions on Iraq.
From the Paper
"On September 11th 2001, terrorists attacked the United States. In the immediate aftermath so many Americans asked the same question??Why??, Why would anyone do something as horrific as that? I found myself asking the same question, and I immediately began looking for the answer through research. What I?ve found is that the only way to try to comprehend the hatred that many Americans have been forced to witness after years of being able to look the other way, is to look at how the roots of resentment in the Middle East sprouted into something uncontrollable. This development of hatred can be outlined through the history of the United States? foreign policy in the region, a history of the U.S. doing almost anything to protect its interests while ignoring the plight of the native citizens, the well being of other nations, and even going as far as ignoring the United States? own ideals."
| |
|
The Bush Administration?s Middle East Policies, 2002.
A discussion on George Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East.
1,080 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper discussing the Bush Administration?s Middle East Policies in the light of the recent comment by Joseph Nye regarding extremism. The author of the paper argues that the U.S. needs to steer a cautious and well-thought out Middle East Policy in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan and its declared ?war against terrorism.? He continues that in the ongoing standoff between Sharon?s Israel and the Palestinians, the continued U.S. tilt towards Israel and dithering towards exerting its influence to restrain Israel from excessive use of force, is not going to help either the establishment of peace in the Middle East or its anti-terrorism crusade.
From the Paper
"Joseph Nye?s warning comes at an appropriate time. He has a point because in the Middle East, and the Third World in general, the US Policy in the Middle East is viewed as arrogant and overbearing. Israel has not let go of the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza that it occupied in the 1967 war, on the excuse that that they are essential for its security, and kept them under military occupation ever since and built settlements on land that rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. It has not implemented the Oslo Accord meant to allow the Palestinian Authority to govern these areas. The real reason for the control of these lands by Israel is its right-wingers obsession to claim these areas under the justification that the land belonged to them in biblical times. This argument is so dangerous and can unleash unlimited wars in the world if it is universalized."
| |
|
U.S Middle East Policy, 2007.
A look at the argument that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East
is based primarily on securing the flow of affordable oil.
3,467 words (approx. 13.9 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper contends that American foreign policy towards the Middle East is dictated by oil and that weapons of mass destruction are used as an excuse to impose American will on those that disobey American oil interests. It argues that a continuation of such a policy will only result in making the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East a reality and that countries that cannot counter the immediate and direct threat that America imposes on its regimes if they do not offer a pro-American oil policy have no choice but to develop weapons of mass destruction.
From the Paper
"A major argument for the United States going to war was that Iraq not only had the capabilities to build weapons of mass destruction, but that the program was well under way and that Iraq had connection to terrorist organizations that were capable of utilizing those weapons on American soil. This was a lie and this has been proven to be a lie. No weapons of mass destruction were found and there were no ties between the Iraqi Regime and Al Qaeda. But before we discuss the current war lets go back a few years and take a look at America's decisions or perhaps a lack of decisions to show that the current conflict in Iraq was not because of security risks inherent to the area, but because of American imperialist tendencies. "
| |
|
U.S. Middle East Policy, 2002.
This paper reviews the problems the United States faces in establishing foreign policy in the Middle East.
2,305 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 5 sources, £ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses that it is not easy to identify the important issues when countries are far away and located in areas with long histories of turbulence and conflicting needs such as the Middle East. The paper presents the history, treaties and international political pressures of the area. The author believes that foreign policy is not a matter of laws passed by Congress but is fluid and changes according to current needs.
From the Paper
"All these conflicts and intertwining issues, impossible to completely separate after centuries of conflict going back to the Crusades, require a delicate hand. In addition, the Department of State and government leaders have to consider the effects of finances given to Israel, especially military support, given that the U.S.S.R. can no longer make significant contributions to Israel?s potential enemies. Public sentiment in the United States must be considered also. Most Americans recognize Israel?s right to exist, but many are often appalled when Israel responds to terrorist acts with what Americans tend to view as excessive force."
| |
|
U.S. Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
This paper compares two books which discuss current U.S. policy in the Middle East.
1,200 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 2 sources, APA, £ 28.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Ali Ansari in "Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East" paints the current crisis with Iran as a lesson in mutually antagonistic behavior that is demonstrated by the inability of United States presidents, from Carter to Bush, to formulate an effective policy for dealing with this country. The author points out that Dennis Ross in "The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Peace in the Middle East" commends the U.S re-involvement in the Israel-Palestinian problem, introduced in President Bush's historic 2002 speech, which outlined a strategy for peace calling for a two state solution. The paper relates that both Ansari and Ross are strong believers in the power of communication because, as long as all sides to these political clashes are still talking, there is hope for peaceful solutions and cooperation rather than chaos.
From the Paper
"Ansari does not take a particularly optimistic tone about the chances of these changes happening. He is very adamant that they must happen or the resulting conflict will "make Iraq look like the cakewalk it was prophesied to be." . Ansari presents his argument in a very matter-of-fact manner, taking the struggle between Iran and the United States step by step from their first official contact in 1856 all the way into the present day. A very realistic, pragmatic tone is taken that, while not entirely hopeful, does suggest that differences can be bridged."
| |
|
Israel and the Role of US Policy in the Middle East, 2000.
An affirmation of the primacy of geo-strategic imperatives.
11,900 words (approx. 47.6 pages), 20 sources, £ 159.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the role of the Israeli in international politics during and after the cold war. The first section discusses Israel's domestic and foreign policy pertaining to the non-Jews of the region and the role of West European powers in strengthening the state and its policies. The third section discusses the basis of American involvement, tracing the path through which Israel became significant to the maintenance of a regional balance, hence American hegemony. The fourth section then returns to the objectives of Israeli foreign policy focusing on the Palestinian issue and concluding with the combined implications of American and Israeli strategic objectives in the Middle East. The last section sums up the analysis by providing a summary of post-cold war US policy and its effect on the world order.
From the Paper
"Even though Israel throughout its history has been dependent on external support it has managed to maintain a substantial level of autonomy in its foreign policy. This has been mainly because of two inter-linked factors: the services provided by Israel and position that the State occupies in the Middle East, both instrumental in strengthening the client-state relationship with the United States. The primacy of establishing and maintaining hegemony in the Middle East (for American policy) has been instrumental in consolidating Israeli power. "
| |
|
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."
|
|
|
