As post-World War II politics revolved around two world superpowers in the United States and the Soviet Union fighting to spread ideas of democracy and communism, respectively, it came to an end in 1989. Two years later, the Soviet Union was officially dismantled, leaving the United States as the sole superpower in the world. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States no longer had to compete economically or militarily, or fight to contain communist ideals, as they had done since the end of World War II in 1945. The United States now had to abandon their forty year long foreign policy of containment. The end of the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union marked a turning point in American foreign policy.
George H.W. Bush was elected into presidency in the 1988 election. He came into office at a critical time for U.S. foreign policy. With the fall of the Soviet Union, President Bush referenced ‘New World Order’. He used this term when addressing Congress in 1990 about the crisis in the Persian Gulf. President Bush said in his speech “a new world order — can emerge: a new era — freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony”. In this excerpt from the speech to Congress, Bush emphasizes the importance of the United States’ role as a unipolar power. His speech was in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. As the Soviet Union had recently fallen, this was the first chance for the United States to demonstrate their dominance in foreign politics. President Bush stressed that United States could not let Iraq annex Kuwait. When Hussein and his troops claimed Kuwait as territory of Iraq, President Bush felt it was necessary to send American military forces in to liberate Kuwait.
After Saddam Hussein refused to remove troops from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, a Middle Eastern powerhouse, called on the United States to help. Being the first test after the Cold War, the United States not only needed to prove themselves as the only world power and help in humanitarian crises, they also acted in their own interests when regarding foreign policy. Because Saudi Arabia is a major exporter of oil, the United States did not want to disrupt the exportation, so they answered their request for aid. The United States also saw their involvement in the Persian Gulf necessary for ensuring peace and stability in the region. American forces and other United Nations troops battled Iraqi military forces, eventually forcing them out of Kuwait, the main goal of intervention.
127 our experts are availableright now
In 1992, the Bosnian War broke out in Eastern Europe. The disintegration of Yugoslavia led to conflict between the multiple ethnic groups that called the country their home. As each group broke away from Yugoslavia, destruction and military action accompanied. The war that broke out in Bosnia involved massive destruction and genocide. United States involvement came into play because of their status as a member of the United Nations. The war and genocide occurring in Bosnia was a complete human rights violation and the United Nations felt that it was their duty to intervene. According to former President Bill Clinton, who held office during the Bosnian crisis, U.S. involvement in Eastern Europe was highly unpopular at the time.
However, according to Clinton’s speech during a forum in 2013, much of the information was classified during the war. The damages that were done, as well as the horrific use of rape and genocide, were unable to be completely released to the public. For this reason, intervention by the United States was not fully supported by Americans, but officials felt it was necessary because it was a humanitarian crisis. The United States felt their status as a world superpower made them obligated to protect the rights of humans globally. [ended with the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement].
Continuing to use their position as a unipolar power to act in a leadership role, the United States intervened in the Somalian War, beginning in 1991. The war resulted from an overthrow of the Somali dictator by violent warlords, leading to conflict between the two. The fighting was extremely destructive for agriculture and caused starvation across the nation. As the world leader, the United States could not sit back as famine terrorized the people of Somalia. President George H.W. Bush sent in American troops. However, because the Somali dictator had been recently overthrown, the lack of political stability made it hard for troops to have success in aiding the Somali peacekeepers.
As President Bill Clinton came into office and saw that troops were having troubles with aid efforts, he pulled the majority from the country, showing how American leaders have differed in foreign policy. After combatants tried to capture warlord Muhammed Farah Aydid and it resulted in two Black Hawk helicopters being shot down, the American public changed their view. After seeing a lack of progress regarding the famine facing Somalis as well as the deaths of U.S. combatants, both the American people and politicians saw reason to withdraw military forces from Somalia. Intervention in Somalia affected how American involvement in foreign affairs should be conducted. After they could not help the famine or help the government regain any sort of order, it became clear that peacekeeping efforts abroad were riskier than they often seemed.
A key feature of the Cold War was the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, and weapons build ups by other nations. With the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons policy was in question as national security is a principle feature of foreign policy. The end of bipolar world power essentially put the possibility of an all out nuclear war out of question. The process of decreasing nuclear stockpiles and disarming came into conversation. In 1991, START, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, was signed by the USSR and the United States.
The treaty placed limits on the number of warheads and heavy bombers the nations could have, meaning their current stockpiles had to be reduced. This treaty was important because it increased the sense of national security felt by the United States, as their biggest enemy at one point had to reduce their nuclear arsenal, minimizing the chance of a nuclear war. START has been largely successful in limiting weapons and increasing security for the United States. Both the US and USSR have limited their arsenals significantly since the treaty went into action in 1994. It had been such a safeguard for U.S. foreign policy in regard to security that when it expired in 2009, New START was signed by the two nations.
The limits put into place by New START were even more significant than that of the original START. Nuclear disarmament talks, as a way to ensure national security, continued in 1996 when the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed by the states of the United Nations. The treaty placed a ban on any nuclear explosions, including testing, to limit advancements in nuclear weaponry, and attempt to end the arms race that had been ongoing since the end of World War II. It was in the interest of the United States to participate in the signing of this treaty for their national security.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States was secure as the top economy in the world. This influenced their economic foreign policy. In 1994, the United States, Canada, and Mexico entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement, also known as NAFTA. The purpose of the trade agreement was to eliminate trade barriers, allow for fair competition, allow for an increase in investments, generate an approach to solve trade disputes amongst the participating countries, as well as create a foundation that allows for an increase in trade benefits in the future.
NAFTA has fulfilled it purpose and has highly benefited the American economy. According to nationalinterest.org, 23.1 percent of foreign value added in U.S. exports comes from NAFTA partners. Not only has the trade agreement benefited U.S. trade in North America, it has extended globally. Other nations see America working in open markets in North America and adapt their business conduct and trade policies so that they have access to U.S. markets and can successfully participate in the markets.
NAFTA not only serves as economic help for the United States, it has a political effect as well. Foreign policy covers economic, security, and political policy. While on the surface, NAFTA serves as an economic benefit for American trade, it also helps the long-standing goal of promoting democracy. According to Cato Institute, NAFTA has allowed the U.S. to influence Mexico into participating in “democratic capitalism” rather than “centralized protectionism”. NAFTA is an example of how the United States used its power to determine foreign policy in the sense that it simultaneously spread democratic ideologies and benefited economically.
After years of U.S. focus on containing communism, the end of the Cold War allowed the United States to turn their attention to humanitarian efforts worldwide. In South Africa, black South Africans were being segregated from the rest of the country. There were intense and violent efforts to put an end to the racial segregation known as apartheid. Obviously, the racial discrimination occurring in South Africa was not conducive to American democratic ideals. When the media and public eye grabbed hold of what was happening, there was a strong anti-apartheid movement in the United States. The pressure from Americans resulted in Congress inflicting economic sanctions on South Africa. Trade between the two nations was prohibited and other democratic nations followed suit. The protests against apartheid in South Africa in the U.S. influence other nations to do the same and eventually, the South African government was pressured into ending laws that discriminated against black South Africans.
American foreign policy from 1989-2001 focused heavily promoting security and democracy, prospering economically, and promoting humanitarian assistance when necessary. With the dismantling of the USSR, most believed that the biggest threat to U.S. security was gone. However, the post-cold war era has been heavily influenced by transnational terrorism. In 1993, though often forgotten, World Trade Center in New York was attacked for the first time by a man claiming he wanted to destroy the “edifices of capitalism”. On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center was attacked again. Two airplanes were hijacked and flown into the buildings causing the deadliest terror attack the United States has faced and beginning the ‘War on Terror’.
About 20 years had passed since the end of the Cold War and the threat of an all out nuclear war. Terrorism was essentially the new nuclear war. The week following the attacks, President George W. Bush addressed Congress, saying that the United States would now be directing all resources, “every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network”. When President Bush made this statement, he set up change for U.S. foreign policy for the upcoming years. The United States would shift to focus more heavily on national security, taking any and all preventative measures that would ensure an attack like 9/11 could never happen.
All in all, the end of the Cold War between the United States and the USSR changed how American foreign policy has been shaped. When the focus was no longer on containing the spread of communist ideals and competing in a nuclear arms race, the U.S. had room to spread their democratic ideals. They constantly aided in attempts to end humanitarian crises such as the famine in Somalia and genocide in the Bosnian War. However, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 marked another turning point in U.S. foreign policy as there was a new threat to national security. Changes in foreign policy resulting from the 2001 attacks remain today, as the United States is still fighting to keep the nation secure, as well as provide humanitarian aid, spread democratic ideals, and prosper economically.
Works Cited
- U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/.
- U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/somalia.
- Amadeo, Kimberly. “What Is the History and Purpose of NAFTA?” The Balance Small Business, The Balance, www.thebalance.com/history-of-nafta-3306272.
- Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Somalia Intervention.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2 Dec. 2018, www.britannica.com/event/Somalia-intervention.
- “Clinton Recalls US Role in Stopping Bosnia War.” Balkan Insight, www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/clinton-recalls-us-role-in-stopping-bosnia-war.
- Costly, Andrew. “War and International Law.” Constitutional Rights Foundation, www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/foreign-policy.html.
- Griswold, Daniel. “NAFTA at 10: An Economic and Foreign Policy Success.” Cato Institute, 17 Dec. 2002, www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/nafta-10-economic-foreign-policy-success.
- Hsiung, James C. “The Post-Cold-War World Order and the Gulf Crisis.” Asian Affairs, vol. 18, no. 1, 1991, pp. 31–41. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30172295.
- Lavin, Frank, et al. “NAFTA Is America’s Most Powerful Foreign Policy Tool.” The National Interest, The Center for the National Interest, 2 Mar. 2018, nationalinterest.org/feature/nafta-americas-most-powerful-foreign-policy-tool-24712.
- Prospectjournalucsd. “AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE END OF SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID.” Prospect Journal, Prospect Journal, 8 Dec. 2013, prospectjournal.org/2011/10/21/americas-role-in-the-end-of-south-african-apartheid/.
- “Remembering the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, www.history.com/news/remembering-the-1993-world-trade-center-bombing.
- Shafer, Jack, et al. “President Bush Responds to Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, Sept. 11, 1990.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 11 Sept. 2009, www.politico.com/story/2009/09/president-bush-responds-to-iraqi-invasion-of-kuwait-sept-11-1990-026997.
