Criticism of United States foreign policy
Nevertheless, the United States is a very powerful country and is still generally considered a world superpower from an economic, military, and political point-of-view, and it has, in an unspecified number, disregarded international norms, rules, and laws in its foreign policy.
[2][3] Critics of American exceptionalism drew parallels with such historic doctrines as civilizing mission and white man's burden which were employed by European Great Powers to justify their colonial conquests.
However, this goal quickly became increasingly difficult to pursue, with growing implicit threats and non-military pressure faced from several powers, most notably Great Britain.
[citation needed] After the American Revolution, the United States immediately began juggling its foreign policy between many different views under the George Washington cabinet.
Most notably, the rivalry between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton arose due to their opposing views on how the United States should align itself with Revolutionary France in its war against Great Britain in 1793.
For example, the treatment of the Cherokee people in the Trail of Tears in which hundreds of Native Americans died in a forced evacuation from their homes in the southeastern area, along with massacres, displacement of lands, swindles, and breaking treaties.
During the early 19th century, general Andrew Jackson exceeded his authority on numerous times and attacked American Indian tribes as well as invaded the Spanish territory of Florida without official government permission.
[11] In 1893, a decision to back a plot to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii by President Benjamin Harrison was clearly motivated by business interests; it was an effort to prevent a proposed tariff increase on sugar.
"[13] Some critics assert the U.S. decision to support the separatists in Colombia in 1903 was motivated largely by business interests centered on Panama Canal despite declarations that it aimed to "spread democracy" and "end oppression".
[23] The U.S. has been criticized for making statements supporting peace and respecting national sovereignty while carrying out military actions such as in Grenada, fomenting a civil war in Colombia to break off Panama, and Iraq.
Particular dictatorships have included the Shah of Iran,[29] Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines,[30] Somoza dynasty of Nicaragua,[30] Fulgencio Batista of Cuba,[30] Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire,[30] Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia,[30] Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan,[29] Yoweri Museveni of Uganda,[31] warlords in Somalia,[31] Augusto Pinochet in Chile,[32] Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay,[33] Carlos Castillo Armas and Efraín Ríos Montt of Guatemala,[34][35] Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina,[36] Suharto of Indonesia,[37][38] and Hissène Habré of Chad.
[44] Contemporary research and declassified documents demonstrate that the US and some of its Western allies directly facilitated and encouraged the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of suspected Communists in Indonesia during the mid-1960s.
[45][46] Bradley Simpson, Director of the Indonesia/East Timor Documentation Project at the National Security Archive, says "Washington did everything in its power to encourage and facilitate the army-led massacre of alleged Communist Party of Indonesia members, and U.S. officials worried only that the killing of the party's unarmed supporters might not go far enough, permitting Sukarno to return to power and frustrate the [Johnson] Administration's emerging plans for a post-Sukarno Indonesia.
[48] Historian John Roosa, commenting on documents released from the US embassy in Jakarta in 2017, says they confirm that "the U.S. was part and parcel of the operation, strategizing with the Indonesian army and encouraging them to go after the PKI.
"[49] Geoffrey B. Robinson, historian at UCLA, argues that without the support of the U.S. and other powerful Western states, the Indonesian Army's program of mass killings would not have occurred.
"[52] The U.S. has been accused of complicity in war crimes for backing the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, which has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, including a cholera outbreak and millions facing starvation.
[60] Since Trump became the president of the United States, Abdelal believes, sanctions have been seen not only as an expression of Washington's preferences and whims, but also as a tool for US economic warfare that has angered historical allies such as the European Union.
[66][67] Zbigniew Brzezinski declared that "[t]he coming to power of Hamas is a very good example of excessive pressure for democratization" and argued that George W. Bush's attempts to use democracy as an instrument against terrorism were risky and dangerous.
Research by political scientist Kent Calder confirms what's come to be known as the 'dictatorship hypothesis': The United States tends to support dictators [and other undemocratic regimes] in nations where it enjoys basing facilities.
In May 2023, The New York Times reported that declassified documents confirm that, regarding irregular warfare, US Special Operations forces "are not required to vet for past human rights violations by the foreign troops they arm and train as surrogates."
[72] In the 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized excessive U.S. spending on military projects,[73] and suggested a linkage between its foreign policy abroad and racism at home.
As a result, the U.S. trading partners gained an ability to influence the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process by manipulating, for example, the currency exchange rate, or restricting the flow of goods and raw materials.
When it did receive irrefutable evidence that the reports were true (and photographs of mass graves and murder in Birkenau camp in 1943, with victims moving into the gas chambers), U.S. officials suppressed the information and classified it as secret.
Some critics point to American disregard for civilian casualties as counterproductive, generating pervasive anti-Americanism in affected countries, recruiting enemy fighters and terrorists.
[105] The U.S. practice of extrajudicial targeted killing by combat drone has drawn conflicting opinions about whether it is effective in eliminating threats or simply serves to recruit more terrorists due to its perceived injustice and civilian casualties.
[16] Jim Webb, former Democratic senator from Virginia and former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, believes that Congress has an ever-decreasing role in U.S. foreign policy making.
"It is difficult to understand how any international agreement negotiated, signed, and authored only by our executive branch of government can be construed as legally binding in our constitutional system", Webb argues.
The issue that remains to be resolved is whether a president can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards of a vital national interest worth of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
[110] The short-term election cycle coupled with the inability to stay focused on long-term objectives motivates American presidents to lean towards actions that would appease the citizenry, and, as a rule, avoid complicated international issues and difficult choices.
[111] Former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold commented that, "There's a broad naïvete in the political class about America's obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve".
