A Comparative Historical Diplomacy On The Interaction On The Global Front

Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /home/rmhu6fn7r820/public_html/wp-content/themes/opskill-123help/functions.php on line 75

Notice: Trying to get property 'status' of non-object in /home/rmhu6fn7r820/public_html/wp-content/themes/opskill-123help/functions.php on line 75

Essay > Words: 2314 > Rating: Excellent > Buy full access at $1

A Comparative Historical Diplomacy On The Interaction On The Global Front

The United States has maintained an active foreign presence in the period spanning the 18th to the current 21st Century. Its active presence has been witnessed in nearly all continents, albeit for many different political, economic, diplomatic and military reasons. Of these reasons, the political reasons have emerged as the key upon which the world’s superpower has established its key interests in. From Democrats to Republican presidencies, all have initiated measures or policies that have gone a great deal in addressing the political interests of the Washington- key amongst them being the desire to ensure safety of its territory. According to the US, this safety can only be achieved if the instabilities that faced the developing or the underdeveloped countries were addressed. As such, United State’s governments had concluded that creation of sound political institutions, structures and policies in the unstable regions would have helped in creating stability in these nations thus ensuring the security of the United States.

In analyzing how the United States facilitated the evolvement of the Liberal International ideology in various regions, this paper reviews the role played by the most active player amongst the US former and current Presidents-former President Wilson. The study expounds on the topic until the period of Clinton presidency.

The active role played by (former) President Wilson could be traced to his professional days in the institutions of higher learning when he stuck to the opinion that “the United States could successfully promote the development of constitutional democracy abroad” (Smith, 1994, p.64).

Upon becoming US President in 1913, Wilson started pursuing democracy in the Latin America when he inherited the policies of imitated military occupation and control of customs houses; economic influence and international agreements from his Republican predecessors (Smith, 1994, 67). He implemented these policies by forcing American banks to withdraw from the consortiums that loaned funds to China and other Latin American states. This was done with the main intention of maintaining influence over these regions.

Besides, he affirmed the US commitment to the independence of the Philippines in the year 1916. As noted by Smith (1994), he appointed a liberal governor who changed the structure and operation of the country’s civil service (p.64). This act reorganized Philippines politics leading to their self-governance.

Ideally, Wilson announced a radical policy of “non-recognition” of un-constitutionally elected regimes. In this case he was referring to the Dominican and Mexican republics which had experienced civil strife as a result of ‘rigged’ elections around 1914. He stressed on his action when he refused to recognize the then former Chilean presidency, Diaz Porfirio, who had used a revolutionary tactic to ascend to the presidency. He believed that by supporting such systems, he will be setting precedence that could perpetuate instability in future, to the detriment of American interests (Smith, 1994, p.69). Mr. Wilson insisted proposed that the Chilean leader accepts a democratic re-election for his recognition as a duly elected president.

For the Dominican case, the former US President legalized the occupation of American forces in the period ranging from 1916 to 1924, when the country held its first and free democratic elections. In these elections, an estimated 850,000 inhabitants participated in these elections. Furthermore, the country maintained its military presence to ensure that the new government adopted and implemented its reform agenda.

The succeeding presidency of Warren Harding worked hard to promote the democracy ‘vision’. His government coerced other unstable nations into adopting liberal institutions.

The government of Herbert Hoover efforts to promote democracy were became evident in the year 1927 when it opposed plans by Cuban leader, President Machado, to extend his stay in power using illegal amendments to the country’s constitution.

On its part, the regime of Harry Truman  frequently used the term ‘developed’ and ‘underdeloped’ to differentiate states which had achieved progress in terms of democracy and those which had not respectively. As such, his government was to work or support the democratically rich nations as opposed to autocratic ones.

On his part, former President Ronald Reagan emphasized on the expansion of democracy to the extent that he even opposed the Soviet Communism just because it didn’t allow for the growth of the virtue.

The administration of George Bush (Senior) was characterized by promotion of democracy programs which were geared towards promoting political evolutions in the autocratic states, key target being Iran.

More so, the tenure of Jimmy Carter was marked by the struggle to promote democracy in the Middle East. Mr. Carter initiated human rights campaigns that were always accompanied by strong rhetoric leading to his government being branded as an authoritarian government.

After the Presidency of Wilson, the other presidencies have followed the same course of promoting democracy across nations. For instance, as Carothers (2004, p.39) noted, “Bill Clinton made democracy promotion the organizing concept of his then proposed foreign policy when his advisers regularly returned to address the theme”. Amongst the contributions of his government, the Clinton administration ratcheted up the place of democracy promotion in the US policy toward Russia soon after taking office and devoted real attention to the issue across the span of Boris Yeltin’s rule (Carothers, 2004, p.41).

  1. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was seen by many as the final triumph of Liberal Democracy over the other two models of mass organization that had emerged in the 20th century: Fascism and Communism. These events gave new momentum to the Democratic Peace Theory. Explain making reference to the political transformations that took place in Eastern Europe, the discussions over the new role of the United Nations, and the security of the United States in this new world. ( a good read of Smith’s chapter 4 will help

The fall of the Soviet Union in the year 1991 was characterised by the following political transforms:

First on the cue, was the extraordinary change of tune by the Soviet leader-Mikhalil Gorbachev’s. In his changed tune, Mr. Mikhail came to buy into Wilson’s ideologies of promoting liberacy and democracy. The then former Soviet leader surprised many people when he stated (and instisted)  for the first on the importance of national self-determination, democratic government, and collective security-appeals which had been articulated by Wilson, seventy years later (Smith, 1994, p.108).

Likewise, the fall of the Soviet Union saw President Vaclav Havel, Zzechoslavakia’s President, address an emptional joint meeting of the Congress in which he praised the former US President, Mr. Wilson Woodrow for having greatly supported their efforts of attaining independence (Smith, 1994, p.108). He also surprised analysed when he re-acknowledged Wilsonianism spirit that sma.............

Type: Essay || Words: 2314 Rating || Excellent

Subscribe at $1 to view the full document.

Buy access at $1