[Tolkien]

Introduction
Pax Americana, American Peace, is the term used to describe the relative peace and stability the West has experienced with the end of World War Two and the ascendancy of the United States, the decline and slow dismantlement of the British Empire, and the fall of a German superpower. In the aftermath of World War Two, the United States was left as the dominant player in the world, with the Soviet Union attempting to bridge the industrialized gap between the West and itself, to rebuild itself after the German invasion, and to set up a large sphere of influence to counteract the military and economic capability of NATO. This bipolarity has been the defining characteristic of Pax Americana up to the fall of the Soviet Union, and the death of Communism (specifically Maoism) in China and the emergence of a rapidly growing market economy in it’s stead. The result of this unipolarity is/has been the increasing globalization and internationalism we see today, an increasingly interconnected and joined world, and a pro-American world order. Periods of unipolarity, however, always come to an end. Today, we can see on the horizon the end of the unipolarity, the American-centric world order, and the emergence of a multipolar world, with several competing powers, struggling over increasingly more valuable resources and influence around the world.

With the decline of the United States as a whole and the rise of currently developing countries, the current unipolar geopolitical climate is nearing it’s end. With the rise of a united Europe, in the form of the European Union, the possibility exists for a split within the West, or the replacement of the United States by the Old World within the world order and in the West. Russia, recovering from the traumatic Fall of the Soviet, is beginning to reassert itself on the world stage and as local power. The current developing world, India and China primarily, will/are rising to prominence and are increasing more powerful militarily, economically, educationally, and politically. China in particular is aggressively expanding their interests into the Third World: Latin America and Africa. Thus, in the coming decades, the five main powers in the new multipolar world will be the United States, China, India, Russia, and Europe.

Current United States Foreign Policy
Today, the United States still has worldwide reach, with China, India, and Russia very much local powers and Europe inseparably tied to the United States culturally, economically, and politically (via NATO). While China is overtaking the United States economically, and India close to that point, the world is still very much unipolar. Militarily, the United States and Europe are the only two entities with the ability to project power worldwide: Russia still reasserting it’s old strength and attempting to rebuild it’s local sphere of influence, and India and China without the nuclear capability to pose a significant threat, along with the US ban on the building of Chinese aircraft carriers. While China and India have significant economic power, they do not, as of yet, have a military capable of projecting power worldwide and the ability to engage the United States.

Currently, United States foreign policy focuses around dealing with Islamic extremists and around the Middle East. Needless to say, United States foreign policy in this region has been an example of disastrous failure. The establishment of a Zionist state, Israel, has greatly destabilized the Middle East as a whole, and acted and acts as a source of contention against the United States throughout the region. Whether rightful or not, it’s establishment was poorly carried out at best; it completely alienated the Palestinians, who completely lost in it’s formation, and has been a factor in the radicalization of certain elements within Islamic countries and the formation of terrorist groups. It’s formation and the continued United States support given to Israel (and the lack of an acceptable compromise on the Palestinian question) is the main source of distrust and anger against the United States on the Arabic peninsula and the countries bordering Israel, along with being a rallying cry for Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups. Recent United States actions in Iraq have had disastrous consequences for the country, the various sects of Islam within it, and for United States relations with the world and the Middle East, especially with Iran. Afghanistan is still unsettled and facing a resurgent Taliban (the shift from Afghanistan to Iraq has not contributed to the situation (we should‘ve learned out lesson when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan…look at how that turned out)). Our policy with Iran has been a train wreck that’s been bombed repeatedly, then pulverized by an asteroid and then had Madonna put on top of it. In short, it’s been a disaster. Operation Ajax (the coup of the Iranian Prime Minster and the setting up of a US sponsored, and extremely unpopular Shah) was a superbly shortsighted action; in the long run, it completely undermined United States credibility in Iran, and sowed the seeds of the theocracy we see today in the country and the radical Islamic revolution that brought it to power. Recent foreign policy actions and events, beginning with the 1979 Revolution in Iran to the present, have ranged from disastrous to hopeful, from the Iran Air Flight 655 tragedy to the term of reformist President Khatami.

To be continued...

EDIT: Comments are welcome.

This post has been edited by Tolkien: 23 November 2008 - 03:37 PM

[Tolkien]

Reserved

[Smallfrog]

If the US fancied itself in the same role that Britain had in the 1800's it should have looked at what cost Britian that role, namely the Boer war. Its tragic that despite having the entire of History to look at, politicians still make the same hypocritical mistakes that cost their nations allot more than they bargained for.

As for its foriegn policy, it would have done equally well to study Europe in the 1800's, where it could have chose two foregin polcies to copy.

Both had the entirely selfish aim of self preservation, and both where aimed at preventing war. Britains was to maintain a power balance in Europe. If one side became to powerful and started attacking the other, you joined in on the weaker side to prevent one power becoming two powerful. This was the rational behind the Napoelionic wars and the Crimea war.

The other was Bismarks succesful foreign policy. He aimed to be on better terms with every one of his neighbours than they where with each other. This way, none of his neighbours would entertain the idea of an alliance against him, as they all trusted him more than the other neighbours.

[Tolkien]

This is the start of a long essay. It doesn't even begin to cover everything. I am commenting on the current geopolitical situation of the world, current US foreign policy, the likely future situation based on current trends, and the foreign policy that the United States needs to take to adapt to the changing circumstances.
EDIT: I agree with you however.

This post has been edited by Tolkien: 23 November 2008 - 03:37 PM

[Big Jimboi]

good read. Look forward to more (if I understood your last post correctly?)

[Tolkien]

I haven't even gotten past US foreign policy on Iran before the present...I've barely scratched the surface.

[cookavich]

The middle east is a complicated place. It doesn't help that the main driving factor behind our foreign policy in the region over the past 35 years or so has been to secure America a steady supply of crude.

[Tolkien]

It also was driven by the needs of the Cold War. We thought in the short term, doing something because it benefited us and damaged the Soviets in the short term.

[cookavich]

Tolkien, on Nov 23 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

It also was driven by the needs of the Cold War. We thought in the short term, doing something because it benefited us and damaged the Soviets in the short term.

True, true. In the end the USSR was a much bigger threat to us than any middle eastern threat could ever conceivably be. While we may not have handled every situation as artfully as we could have I think the end result has been positive for us. Having to face Islamic extremism and the weak states of the region is better than having to face the Red Army, imo. Again, things could have been handled better.

[cyan9]

that post was full of so much win and simultaneously so much fail its amazing. still like the post even though there were a couple of things I disagreed with.

[Tolkien]

I have no idea how you could believe the formation of Israel is in any way STABILIZING to the region.

[cookavich]

Tolkien, on Nov 23 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

I have no idea how you could believe the formation of Israel is in any way STABILIZING to the region.

Hmm? I didn't say that... not that stabilizing the region should be our top priority.

[Caliph]

Can you elaborate on the US barring the Chinese from building aircraft carriers?

I'm a fan of reading this stuff and I didn't know about this, although it does explain why China doesn't currently have any carriers.

Could you provide me a link to your source?

[Tolkien]

cookavich, on Nov 23 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

Hmm? I didn't say that... not that stabilizing the region should be our top priority.

I was referring to Cyan.

EDIT: Caliph- the Ban isn't official, the US simply strongly discourages the building of one (which is why one hasn't been built yet), at least that I know of (unless there has been a change in policy). We're worried that it could be used against Taiwan. I'll look it up.

This post has been edited by Tolkien: 23 November 2008 - 05:01 PM

[Vaal Satori]

Tolkien, on Nov 23 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

I was referring to Cyan.

EDIT: Caliph- the Ban isn't official, the US simply strongly discourages the building of one (which is why one hasn't been built yet), at least that I know of (unless there has been a change in policy). We're worried that it could be used against Taiwan. I'll look it up.

Taiwan is well within the range of Chinese aircraft even without any carriers, so I don't really follow that rationale.

[Kenadian_2006]

Vaal Satori, on Nov 23 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

Taiwan is well within the range of Chinese aircraft even without any carriers, so I don't really follow that rationale.

I also can't see the US doing much of anything if the Chinese actually build a carrier.

[Tolkien]

Taiwan also has land based air, and we've stationed a US fleet in the strait as well. The main use of a carrier would be to cut off the sea lanes to Taiwan, help neutralize that ground based air, and also to allow China to project power onto various Pacific Islands.

Ken: We can still express our disapproval, but as time goes on it becomes less and less effective a deterrent. Projections put China with a carrier by 2015, if not sooner.

[Kenadian_2006]

Tolkien, on Nov 23 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

Taiwan also has land based air, and we've stationed a US fleet in the strait as well. The main use of a carrier would be to cut off the sea lanes to Taiwan, help neutralize that ground based air, and also to allow China to project power onto various Pacific Islands.

Ken: We can still express our disapproval, but as time goes on it becomes less and less effective a deterrent. Projections put China with a carrier by 2015, if not sooner.

Cool, it's not like the Russian's carrier is that much of a threat. The Chinese can make for some good modern day RTS games then.

In seriousness though, let em. The Americans have 11 (and the Brits and French will have 2 and 1 new ones respectively) that can be shoved in their face.

[Tolkien]

There's nothing much the US can do to stop them if they wanted to nowadays. However, the longer they go without an aircraft carrier, the longer they remain a local power and the more time we have to pull our act together.

[Kenadian_2006]

Tolkien, on Nov 23 2008, 08:00 PM, said:

There's nothing much the US can do to stop them if they wanted to nowadays. However, the longer they go without an aircraft carrier, the longer they remain a local power and the more time we have to pull our act together.

I still can't see much of anything happening. They are rivals, not enemies.