American Foreign Policy in Times of War and Crisis

Introduction

In deciding on foreign diplomacy, reaching a consensus on the state interest is crucial. Institutional memory greatly influences foreign diplomacy in addition to the idea of national advantage (Palmer, 2022). George once declared that the US should have as little administrative relationship as manageable with other nations. Despite this, the US longstanding international relations tenet is firmly ingrained in its political culture. The US has developed into a significant international power strategically and economically interconnected with the rest of the globe. Civil Wars in the US have had both negative and positive effects on the state; this research paper explores the causes and the consequences of the wars.

Foreign Policy

The objectives guiding a state’s behavior and relationships in its interactions with other nations are called world diplomacy. How international alliances are created is influenced by various reasons, including internal issues, the acts or programs of other authorities, and desires to realize specific geographic patterns. National leaders use their diplomatic strategies to control global diplomacy and connections with other nations (Nowotny, 2018). A state’s international affair policy reflects its ideals and aspirations while advancing its representative democracy and financial goals abroad. A nation’s foreign policy, which usually places a focus on domestic and global security, will impact how that administration associates with international entities like the UN and residents of other nations. Foreign affairs decisions are developed and have an impact due to several factors. Other countries’ diplomatic moves and goals for prosperity, such as those related to science or the economy, are some of the causes.

Embassies and international bodies can work together beyond country lines with the aid of foreign government policies to address shared problems, promote security, and protect shared priorities. A nation’s domestic ethos, a different category of domestic-focused federal policy, often supports its international policy (Montes, 2019). Together, the two policies strengthen the country’s position within and outside of its borders and work to complement one another. The US Ministry of Diplomacy is in charge of directing American global policy. According to the ministry, its goals are to safeguard and advance the American military, wealth, and constitutional principles and to help create a favorable international atmosphere for all Americans and non-Americans (Montes, 2019). The US House Advisory board on external issues, a standing review panel of the US House leaders, oversees legal frameworks and bills about foreign legislation. This advisory board has authority over issues like international assistance, diseases in other nations, and the advancement of democratic values. Additionally, it includes six permanent congressional committees that deal with matters related to foreign growth, disaster relief, and civil rights in various parts of the planet, including the Middle East and Africa (Montes, 2019).

Foreign policy may significantly influence the economy, either locally or internationally. International strategies frequently prioritize the socio-economic development of their own countries. Still, it is also because practically every facet of any international relations will indirectly impact the larger global monetary system. For instance, the entire world business has shifted as a result of the conflict in Ukraine that Russian leader Vladimir Putin started, according to an article in the International Relations journal at the beginning of 2022 (Jönsson, 2022). The COVID-19 epidemic shutdown precautions implemented in various nations have a long-lasting influence on international distribution networks and economics (Jönsson, 2022). In contrast, the UK’s exit from the European Union has had continuing monetary effects and ramifications for trade links across Europe.

Reasons Why the United States May Declare War

Parliament and the Presidents have passed 11 official resolutions of war towards international countries in 5 distinct conflicts from the Reagan Presidency (Manuel, 2018). Each proclamation was accompanied by a proposal from the administration made in front of a joint assembly of Parliament, either verbally or in the manuscript (Manuel, 2018). Armed assaults against US land or US persons, as well as challenges to US privileges or objectives as a top country, have been stated as the justifications for the demands. Instead of official threats of war, House and the Presidency have also passed approvals for force deployment (Manuel, 2018). These laws have often permitted the application of violence against enemy countries in a certain area, whether they are named or unidentified.

In most instances, the Governor has sought power, but occasionally Parliament has granted him less than he sought. Not every force-use authorization has led to real conflict. The Presidents must sign both announcements and approvals to take effect as laws (Christine, 2018). A proclamation of war by itself, as opposed to authorization, establishes a state of conflict under global law and permits the execution of enemy soldiers, the confiscation of adversary assets, and the detention of enemy immigrants (Manuel, 2018). Formal announcements, which were originally held to be a need under the law before going into conflict and were believed to end all political and economic relationships, as well as the majority of agreements between the adversaries, have lost favor after the Second World War (Manuel, 2018). Whether a public statement or authorization was given, armed combat is subject to the rules of war, including the agreements of Geneva and Hague.

Impacts of Wars on the United States

Developing an army was only one aspect of America’s military campaign (Byrne, 2020). The clothes, ammunition, vehicles, warships, aircraft, and other fighting supplies required for that army were required to be provided. The US could support itself and its partners because of its enormous people and financial wealth (Byrne, 2020). The American industry had to be restructured to produce more war goods. The war endeavor had a profound impact on American society. As economic output rose and millions more people entered the economy, unemployment almost disappeared (Byrne, 2020). Because of the need for labor, women, African Americans, and other demographics gained new opportunities. Many Americans abandoned their households to operate in the defense businesses that sprang up throughout the nation.

United States engagement in Second World War led to profound changes in every aspect of American life (Byrne, 2020). Thousands of people joined the military forces, going to places they probably would not have otherwise. Due to the munitions industries’ need for labor, thousands of individuals relocated, largely to the Gulfstream, Ocean, and Gulf beaches, where most of the military installations were located. After World War II, the United States possessed the world’s strongest market (Byrne, 2020). American casualties on the battlefield, even at 400,000, pale compared to losses of any other important invader.

Through missed chances for investments in government infrastructures and operations and increased lending rates, the Baghdad and Afghanistan conflicts have led to substantial financial failures in the U.S (Byrne, 2020). Contrary to popular belief, which maintains that using force to create job opportunities is a particularly effective strategy, US public spending on the current wars would have created at least 1.7 million more job possibilities (Byrne, 2020). Like this, tens of millions of pounds spent on combat equipment like warships and planes during the first generation of the conflicts may have been better used to build essential public socioeconomic infrastructures like streets and drainage systems (Wallace, 2021). The mortgage charges that institutions and other lenders charge debtors have as well been dictated by the wars. This is a consequence of warfare expenses being boosted fully by credit, which has increased the public liabilities to Economy proportions and increased long-term mortgage costs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, military expenditure, like other types of state expenditure, may be a significant generator of supply for goods and services during financial downturns and periods of low sentiment. New sectors, technology, streams of consumption, and job opportunities might all result from it. It can inadvertently lead to more effective income dispersion if the defense budget is financed by proportional taxes, as it did during the Second World War. The equalization of government revenues after 1946, which also made it simpler to develop a substantial capitalist class centered on shopping, enabled the prolonged post-war boom that underpinned the United States’ succeeding governmental and economic supremacy. Regardless of the assumption that significant spending during World War II reduced unemployment and reestablished morale, consumption and output declined over time due to major changes that were needed to the market structure so that it would focus on the allied forces. However, there is no disputing that eliminating redundant potential and increasing unemployment rates were positive developments.

References

Christine, Gray. “7 Security Council authorization of Member States to use force,” International Law and the Use of Force, vol. 5, nº24, 2018, p. 30–39.

Manuel, Brunner. “Declaration of war,” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2018.

Montes, Manuel F. “4. the impact of foreign investor protections on domestic inequality,” International Policy Rules and Inequality, vol. 5, nº23, 2019, p. 82–111.

Nowotny, Thomas. “Non-governmental organizations, nations without a territory, and the Fractured Global ‘Polity,’ Diplomacy and Global Governance, vol. 5, nº39, 2018, p. 133–44.

Palmer, Nicola J. “Institutional influences on national tourism-related foreign direct investment (TFDI) policies and programmes,” Tourism and Foreign Direct Investment, vol. 3, nº35, 2022, p. 71–98.

Wallace, Duncan. 2021. “Like Frankenstein’s Creature, Corporations Have Been Misunderstood.” SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.