The Future of Foreign Policy

The United States has always played a major role in foreign politics. Since World War II, when the U.S. emerged as a super power, it rose so greatly so that it and, arguably, other nations, view it as the world police. The purpose of America’s foreign policy is, “to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community,” according to the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State.

America’s foreign policy has been heavily criticized by both those abroad and at home for its hypocrisy. While the United States proclaims the importance of freedom and equality for all, dictatorships in Latin America and the Middle East have been spurred on by American approval and aid. The United States also states its interest in helping developing and/or troubled nations. However, when opportunity strikes, America does not spend as much, or send as much aid as it should, in order to sufficiently aid these ailing nations.

Possibly the greatest upset above all among critics, is America’s attitude towards its own position in foreign policy. America views itself as above the rules, and beyond the reach of the ideals it sets out for other countries. For example, America, while advocating the end of nuclear proliferation maintains its own nuclear weapons. In addition, even with the statements of global peril of the environment, the United States refuses to take part of the Kyoto Protocol, which works to slow and eradicate the effects of global warming. It is perceived that it is America's role, or even, obligation to spread democracy and freedom to all, as the nation views these ideals as essential to the basis of any country, whether the efforts of the US was called on for help, or not.

One can say that this problem was exacerbated by President George W. Bush’s efforts to “expand democracy around the world and maintain a role for the United States befitting the world’s only superpower.” He attempted to make this goal into a reality by making the events of September 11 the core foundation of his foreign policy: fighting terrorism. Yet, seven years have passed, and the United States is still in the midst of this war and the number of deaths multiplies each day. Bush’s push for spreading democracy in Latin America, the Middle East and Africa has not produced any positive outcomes.

Now, in the midst of this historical election, it seems as if foreign policy is playing a significant role in each candidate’s campaign. John McCain, playing to his military background and congressional experience handling foreign policy, criticized Barack Obama for his lack of experience in foreign politics, while many chief military and foreign policy experts such as Secretary of State, Colin Powell and Regan Defense Department official, Ken Adelman, have supported Obama’s position of being willing to negotiate with several oppositional national figures such as Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the Castro brothers of Cuba. It is presumed that American voters prefer Obama’s more novel approach, as seen in the election polls, as opposed to McCain’s more traditional one, but one can only wait and see what this election will have in store for the foreign policy of the United States for the next four years.