US Foreign Policy in the World Economy and Politics

Subject: Politics & Government
Pages: 45
Words: 12224
Reading time:
43 min
Study level: College


In the International system, there are weak states and strong states. The weak states exist at the mercy of the most powerful states because they are forced to design domestic and foreign policies that reflect the wishes of the superpower. In the current international system, the United States is the only superpower implying that it is the hegemony. The United States influences global economic activities and political processes in a number of ways. This study seeks to establish some of the ways in which the United States influences the global affairs, particularly in politics and economics. The paper undertakes a quantitative study to gather the views of various American foreign policy makers and the officials of various embassies representing their countries regarding. The article seeks the positions of various respondents regarding the power of the United States globally in terms of politics and economics. The research paper has five chapters. The first section is mainly the introduction section whereby the background information, problem statement, purpose of the study, and the hypothesis are given. The second chapter of the research paper entails literature review whereby both conceptual and theoretical review of literature is undertaken. In the third chapter, the article discusses the method that will be utilized in gathering information from the public. In the same chapter, an appropriate sampling technique is determined. In the fourth chapter, adequate data analysis is conducted using some of the established quantitative data analysis tools. In the fifth chapter, major research findings and conclusions are given.

Background Information

Foreign policy refers to the measures that a state puts in place as far as its behavior with other units in the international system is concerned. In other words, it refers to the way in which a state relates with other actors in the international. In this regard, a state sets the standards that would guide it when interacting with other state and non-state players. The United States is the only center of power in the modern international system owing to the fact that the system is characterized by unipolarity. This means that there is only one center of power. The foreign policy of the United States has always been guided by polarity meaning that the policy keeps on changing, according to the dynamics of the global system. Before the world wars, the foreign policy of the United States was characterized by isolationism whereby the state did not care about what was happening in the world (Smith 89). After the Second World War, the US became a major player in the global politics. The polarity was then characterized by bi-polarity meaning that there were two centers of power, which were the United States and the Soviet Union. The US adopted the policy of containment after the WWII since it had to counter the influence of communism.

The issue of multilateralism and unilateralism has also played a critical role as far as the US foreign policy making process is concerned. Some foreign policy makers embrace multilateralism whereby extensive consultations are made before the state formulates the final policy. In this regard, public opinion must be sought and other state and non-state actors must be informed amicably before taking an action globally. However, multilateralism is a recent phenomenon since it was never incorporated into decision-making organs before the advent of globalization. Liberalists, who believe that the state is not the only actor in the global arena, mostly support multilateralism. On the hand, some policy makers, including Henry Kissinger, believe that the state has adequate powers to make and implement foreign policies without consulting because foreign policy is considered high politics. Involving public opinion in foreign policy making is detrimental.

The United States has an approximated economy of $15 trillion, which gives it an advantage to influence the global political processes and economic matters. The financial wealth of the United States is a quarter that of the world meaning that the state has enormous resources that supports its military and the population. For a country to enter into war, it needs a stable economy and adequate military funding. The country uses an approximate of $711 in funding the military each year, which is incomparable to the military spending of any other country or even two countries combined. Secretary of state in the United States is in charge of Foreign policy making, even though he or she must consult extensively before reaching any decision. National interests are always given priority when making foreign policies. The state assesses the benefits of the policy to the American people before implementing it. The US has always been led by a general principle regarding foreign policy, which states that the government will always create a safer, egalitarian, and flourishing globe for the benefit of American populace and the global population. Apart from the general principle, the US house committee in charge of foreign affairs has additional foreign policy objectives, which include controlling exports, monitoring the distribution of weapons of mass destruction, entering into treaties with other states to foster trade, and encouraging education. Moreover, the house committee ensures that the American government protects the interests of the American people abroad who should do everything under their power to expatriate resources.

The United States uses various methods in promoting American interests in various regions. In developed countries, it uses multilateral and bilateral negotiations. Foreign aid and the idea of Direct Foreign Investment are the two techniques that are often utilized in the third world. In such regions, restoration or promotion of democracy is always the issue that dominates the foreign policy. In some regions, particularly the Middle East where terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are the major problems, all possible techniques are applied including negotiation, the use of force, coercion and foreign aid. In 2010, the US foreign secretary admitted that other states deal with the United States because they do not have any other option, especially on matters related to the global problems such as terrorism, financial crisis, environmental problems, and the threats posed by the weapons of mass production.

Statement Problem

The United States foreign policy has gone through a number of changes since independence. However, the major changes were witnessed during the First World War, the Second World War, and the Cold War. After the American Revolution, the main foreign policy of the US focused on non-interventionism or isolationism as some scholars would refer. The policy persisted until after the WWI. During this time, the United States was one of the global powers. After the WWII, the US adopted the policy of containment mainly to check on the influence of communism. During the First World War, various schools of thoughts emerged as regards to the best theory to be applied in foreign policy making. Some adopted realism while others stuck to the Wilson school of thought, popularly referred to as liberalism. Many policy makers based their decisions on the George Washington’s goodbye letter, which stated that the US had to observe the idea of good faith and ensure that justice prevails in all parts of the world. Moreover, the farewell address urged Americans to make peace with peace lovers and attack the enemies of peace.

The US had to enter into trade agreements with other states in order to strengthen its domestic gross product. In 1790s, the Federalist Party adopted the ideas of George Washington, but it received strong opposition in 1812 when the state attacked Britain and embraced France as its ally. A peace agreement was signed in 1778 with France, which stated that the two states would work together to promote the common interests and protect each other militarily. The US has never entered into another peace agreement until 1949 when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed. The behavior of the United States in the international system before WWI shows that the state’s main interest was to trade with other countries and keep off from unnecessary conflicts. After the Second World War, Wilson Woodrow proved that the US could no longer take a back seat and watch things from a distance in the global arena. The president supported the fourteen points that would influence states in the world to work together towards the realization of common interests, among them being restoration or support of democracy.

After WWII, the United States emerged winner, which placed it in one of the most prestigious positions in the world politics and economics. The US was the only non-colonial power that had military strength, as well as economic power. It came up with economic and political policies that influenced the international system, including the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. The world was divided into two due to the ideological differences witnessed after the WWII. The US led one of the factions, which believed in capitalism while the other faction was led by the Soviet Union, with communist ideals. The US had to adopt the policy of containment in order to counter the Soviet Union. In 1991, the Cold War ended with the United States emerging victorious after Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, designed some of the radical policies referred to as perestroika and glasnost. The two policies aimed at reconstructing Russia and ending foreign aggression.

The US foreign policy has not changed to date because national interests are still considered when designing these policies. The state is committed to making some of the foreign policies that would foster free trade, national security, and promotion of humanity. In the 21st century, the United States is still considered the strongest state in the international system since it influences the behavior of states economically and politically. However, its economic might is projected to fall owing to the growth of other economic giants such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and the European Union. The United States is a permanent member of the Security Council, which is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the world is safe. In this capacity, the US has always taken a strong position regarding restoration of democracy and fairness in the world. The US has managed to bring reforms in the way states relate and interact because it discourages armed conflicts.

Purpose of the Study

The study is very important because it looks at the US foreign policy making processes and the impacts of the policy to other states. The study is critical in understanding the global problems affecting many actors in the international system such as terrorism, the gap between the south and the north, the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, environmental issues, and issues to do with governance. For a policy maker, the paper is critical because it analyzes some of the foreign policies that have been applied successfully. In each region, the US has a special policy that aims at achieving its national interest. In the Middle East, the US has taken time to understand the conflict system and come up with the best policy, even though its policies have been unsuccessful. In this regard, states in the region have been assisted in forming regional bodies such as the GCC. In Africa, the United States influences states through its renowned organization referred to as the USAID, as well as the Breton Hood Organizations (IMF and World Bank). Some of the purposes of the study include

  1. To describe accurately the foreign policy making processes in the United States
  2. To analyze the major effects of the US foreign policies in various regions of the world
  3. To determine whether the United States is still the world’s most powerful economy
  4. To evaluate whether the United States has made the world a better place for all

Research Hypotheses

H1a. American foreign policies do not influence the global affairs, which are related to politics and economics.

H0a. American foreign policies do not influence the global affairs, which are related to politics and economics

H2a: American policies boost the economic growth of many states in the world.

H0a: American policies do not boost the economic growth of many states in the world.

H3a. American foreign policies influence the political developments of many states in the world.

H30. American foreign policies do not influence the political developments of many states in the world.

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework

Literature Review

Foreign Policy Making in the United States

As earlier noted in the introduction section, the foreign policies made in the United States affect the economic and political decisions of many states in the world, including the weak and the perceived stronger states. This is mainly because the United States is the global hegemony given the fact that it is the only superpower in the current international system. The US foreign policies can only be understood under the study of political traditions since the traditions contribute to the understanding of the political history of the United States. Foreign policy is just one of the political histories of the United States since the country has gone through various political transformations both locally and globally. In the 20th century, a number of scholars including Hofstadter in his work the American Political Tradition (1948), Hartz, Liberal Tradition in America (1955), and the writings of Lipset in American Exceptionalism, discuss various American traditions in foreign policy making, which have affected the relationships between the state and other actors in the international system. The above scholars analyzed the foreign decision making processes in the United States, which have global impacts. Scholars of international relations have tried to put the views of various intellectuals into certain theoretical perspectives.

Walter Russell Mead is one of the scholars who have been so consistent in explaining the foreign behavior of the United States. His views are mostly contemporary since he uses the quotes from the speeches of leaders and evidence from governmental journals to argue his case. In fact, many analysts view him as being the best scholar as far as reporting on American foreign policy is concerned. It should be noted that the scholar relies on political traditions of the United States in his analysis meaning that the US foreign policy making processes could be understood well through the application of political traditions. Tradition in this sense means the systematic way of doing things in the American society. For instance, in the American tradition, the issue of bailing out some of the industries or sectors owing to the economic crisis or other disasters is never common (Mead 88). One wonders why the United States would move out to bail some of the industries or sectors in the foreign states yet the policy is not applicable domestically.

Mead argued that this proves the United States is always interested in influencing the economic issues of a foreign state even if it means going against its own traditions. The American market operates according to its own internal logics whereby the consumers and the producers of goods and services check each other frequently to ensure that goods produced are the only ones needed in the economy. In other words, the government does not intervene in the market since the economy is based on the free market model. In one of the articles titled Millennium written by Renée Jeffery (2005), traditions are believed to be inventions that show how the policy makers in the US reconstructed the past, which should be used to build the present and the future. In this regard, foreign policy making in the United States is expected to follow the previous experiences and doctrines. When foreign policy makers sit down to draft policies, they are often guided by certain themes since the policies made must reflect the political traditions of the state.

Political traditions allow policy makers to formulate policies that interpret the past, which help them in coming up with recyclable main beliefs, overviews, main concerns, stories, tropes, and lessons. Some scholars believe that the study of political traditions is concerned with examining the past, which should inform the present decisions. Some traditions are considered dead meaning that they cannot be invoked when designing the present policies. This could be because the context at which the foreign policy is happening is different. Some traditions are alive in the sense that they carry historical incidents, viewpoints and principles, which are valid, even in the current international system. It should be noted that some living customs are not vibrant since they could have buffed and faded in terms of fame. The United States has always relied on influential traditions when making foreign policies, which entails recycling similar sets of formulas and lessons from the past. Since some traditions are unproductive, they could be deterministic and simplistic in the sense that enemies could be familiar with the processes. However, productive traditions are dynamic and are rich in terms of historical experiences meaning that the enemy cannot determine the nature of policies that would come from these previous experiences.

Political traditions refer to past and present experiences that compete and at times overlap with each other. These traditions act as a bridge between scholars and policy makers in the international arena. In this regard, subsequent governments will always formulate policies that favor their party manifestos as compared to coming up with a policy that would affect adversely their political objectives. Foreign policies of the United States have always been affected by the statement (the presidents) meaning that they are actor-centered. In this regard, the study of the idiosyncratic variables is of essence. For instance, the terms Wilsonian tradition and Jacksonian tradition are often used to mean the foreign policies that were designed during the reign of the two presidents respectively. Such presidents are always referred to as famous because they came up with foreign policies that changed the face of the state in the global map. Political tradition is different from political ideology because tradition is less burdensome more plastic.

American Foreign Policy Making Tradition

Mead observed that the United States has never had a strong foreign policy that aims at making it the most powerful state in the global politics and economy. In fact, Otto von Bismarck wondered how the United States rose to be one of the most powerful states in the world yet it did not have strong foreign policies as compared to other powers in Europe such as Germany and Britain. He concluded by arguing that God has a special destiny for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America. Scholars such as Mead, who noted that the US never cared so much about the foreign policy since it never had global ambitions, later echoed the views of Bismarck. The success of the United States in the global issue surprises many scholars since it has never had a stable doctrine that aims at expanding its interests. Mead refers the American success as the eccentrically fossilized conservative astuteness in which he labels this insight as continental reasoning. Meads views the US as being naïve and ingenuous in matters related to foreign affairs. The United States has always advocated for democracy yet democracy is incompatible with state interests at the global level. In fact, Mead noted that democracy is the obstacle of state interests in the foreign affairs (44).

For any individual to comprehend the behavior of the United States in the international system, Mead advised that a number of issues must be taken into consideration, including the American constitution, the role of the congress, the idea of regionalism, the role of missionary organizations, feminism, and the idea of democracy and nationalism. These are some of the factors that have played a critical role in the growth of the US foreign policy, which have had a tremendous effect to the global politics and economics. The factors have led to the emergency of a number of schools of thoughts. In this regard, the foreign policy of the United States seems inconsistent, even though all foreign policies have been successful in the sense that they have managed to influence the global politics and the economy. Kissinger (98) was of the view that the actions of the United States were never to be interpreted in terms of foreign policy. However, Mead was of a different view because he noted that the policies, whether foreign or not, were extremely successful because the state interest was achieved. Kissinger noted that the United States is able to influence the affairs of the world mainly because of its developed democratic system. It acts as a symbol of democracy, just as Alexis de Tocqueville noted. In this regard, Kissinger continued by noting that the United States had a responsibility of ensuring that its values are spread in the world, using any means possible.

According to Kissinger, the United States has never come out clear to declare whether it prefers isolationism or commitment to its ideals. Kissinger underscored the fact that the United States had one of the best governments in the world and therefore it had to ensure that other countries follow the same form of diplomacy, which respects international law and democracy. Kissinger is known for his ideas on realpolitik whereby he noted that, “America’s journey through international politics has been a triumph of faith over experience” (Kissinger 18).Walter McDougal is another foreign relations scholar who has been keen on analyzing the American foreign policy making process. In his works Promised Land, Crusader State (1997), the above scholar proved that his reasoning is almost similar to that of Mead.

McDougal (17) was of the view that American ancestors were great in terms of foreign policy making process until the McKinley presidency when the US foreign policy could no longer withstand the taste of time. According to McDougal, the American foreign policy could be divided into two testaments- the old and the new. In his opinion, the Old Testament was stable and consistent as compared to the new. The old American foreign policy was productive because it aimed at ensuring Americans achieve their dreams. The old policy treasured republican liberty since Americans could identify their weaknesses and develop some mechanisms through which they could develop. For this to happen, the United States had to keep off from the global issues since they could derail their ambitions of realizing the best results. In the contrary, the New Testament is characterized by a foreign policy that aims at salvaging the world. In this regard, the United States is the champion of democracy in a world that is full of tension, revolutions, and war.

One of the American Senators, William Fulbright, was of the same view with McDougal. In his works, “the Arrogance of Power (1967)”, Fulbright argued that the US foreign policy has two sides. Moreover, the policy is always characterized by morality. He noted, “both are characterized by a kind of morality, but one is the morality of decent instincts tempered by the knowledge of human imperfection and the other is the morality of absolute self-assurance fired by the crusading spirit” (Fulbright 245). The New Testament of American foreign policy came into place in 1898 when Americans fought with the Spanish in the Spanish-American War. McDougal views this as a sign of surrender to the pressure of crusaders who saw that the US had a role to play in the global politics. Culturally, the Americans were forced to adopt the New Testament owing to the pressures from social gospel, progressive movements, and social Darwinism. The New Testament came into practice after the First World War when Wilson visited Europe and pledged to help the continent that had been hardly hit by the war. The idea of Wilson is the big scoundrel in McDougal’s analysis of American foreign policy owing to its overstretched, pretentious, and academically defective underpinnings.

By employing Mead’s views, McDougal suggests a revisit to the Jeffersonian model regarding US foreign policy, which mainly focuses on safeguarding egalitarianism and independence at home rather than attempting to reform the planet. This more self-effacing apparition is related to that suggested by another thinker by the name Anatol Lieven. In his luminous works on America Right or Wrong (2004), he also criticized America’s messianic propensities in foreign relations. Just like McDougal, Lieven uses Wilson as an example to argue out his case. He uses the writings of Herman Melville to argue out the case for exceptional reasoning by noting that Americans are the unique selected citizens. They are the Jews in the modern society who can be compared to Israelites during the old times. Americans are the holders of the ark of the freedom in the current international system. God has preordained American people and he anticipates for immense things from them. These include the great things that Americans believe in such as democracy. In this regard, other states in the international system would soon follow the ideals that Americans treasure. In this case, Americans are the pioneers of humanity meaning that they are the advance sentinel sent on through the boondocks of untested things to create the way for the New World (Lieven 33)

Lieven supported the views of Hostadter and Huntington by noting that messianic and exceptional beliefs puts the United States beyond other states because the state is more than a country, given the fact that it controls the global ideology. The control of global ideology gives it advantage as far as influencing decisions in the global politics and economics is concerned. Moreover, the US has always employed both universalism and particularistic policies, depending on the state of affairs. John Bolton defended the decision of the United States regarding pulling out of the global treaties related to arms control by invoking particularistic ideas. On the other hand, George W. Bush defended the decision to use force in restoring democracy among rogue states by noting that it was the role of the United States to ensure that democracy prevails globally. In this regard, the main aim of the United States regarding restoration of democracy is to support and work closely with social movements that advocate for justice and free and fair elections. This would automatically end tyranny and militaristic forms of governments in the world. This is based on the idea that democratically elected governments are unlikely to engage in conflicts with other actors in the international system (Steigerwald 82).

The American foreign policy making process is very complex according Mead because the two main theories, realism and liberalism, are not enough to explain the historical behavior of foreign policy makers. Moreover, interpretation of the American foreign policy through isolationist and internationalist approaches is not enough. Therefore, Mead suggested four traditions or foreign policy making processes that could be employed in understanding the behavior of the United States towards the external actors in the international system. These traditions include Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, and Wilsonian traditions. Hamiltonian ideals refer to the ideas that were designed during the time of one of the American secretaries of treasury who was a close ally of President George Washington. The secretary suggested that the United States had to maintain close ties with other nations, particularly Britain, in terms of trade. In his recent Works on God and Gold (2007), Mead noted that the United States was simply extending the dominance that existed before, though power was under the British.

After colonialism, the United States developed strong links with Britain, which gave it an advantage in the global arena. Jeffersonian ideals are sometimes controversial because the President Jefferson is considered the most controversial president in the American history. Jefferson valued the American ideals of democracy and liberty and believed that these ideals could best be protected by keeping off from global issues. The president suggested that the United States could achieve its interests if it could have kept off from conflicts with other actors in the international system. For the state to expand, the idea of soft power could apply very well whereby America could have conquered the world without necessarily engaging in war. To achieve its interests in Europe, the United States could have utilized commercial techniques. Indeed, these ideals were extending used after the Second World War when the Breton Hood organizations were formed to reconstruct Europe. To understand the current activities of the United States, the ideals of Wilson Woodrow are always invoked because he was of the view that the United States had a role to play as far as spreading of democracy and liberty in the global arena is concerned.

Effects of American Foreign Polices on Global Economy and Politics

As earlier noted, the national interests always guide the foreign policy of any state, including the United States. In the international system, scholars note that there is central authority (government). Thomas Hobbes referred to this authority as the Leviathan meaning that it is in charge of national security and peaceful coexistence. In this regard, the international system is brutal, anarchic, and nasty. States are simply driven by their national interests meaning that a state will only make policies that bring some benefits. Since the international system is anarchic, there exist strong and weak states meaning that power is not equally distributed. Strong states will always ensure that they have their way by simply brushing off the ideas of the weak ideas.

The United States is the most powerful state in the current international system, both politically and economically. Its foreign decisions affect the behavior of almost all state and non-state actors in the international system. Another characteristic of the international system is that the state is no longer the only actor because there are other units such as the supranational organizations, including religious organizations and human organizations. The state has to consult extensively before coming up with foreign policies. The United States has taken advantage of the current international system to influence other states to agree some polices. For instance, the influence of the US has been felt through the activities of its embassies and global organizations such as the USAID. Financial institutions have played a critical role in influencing global politics and economics. In this regard, the IMF and the World Bank are the two global institutions that have forced countries of the south to follow the American doctrines.

Literature Review on Selected Case Studies


The United States has a considerable investment in the East Asian region, which is believed to exceed that of Europe. Recently, US exports to Asia augmented by an approximated one-fifty percent, which is estimated to be over $200 billion. Available body of knowledge suggests that East Asia is the third largest partner of the United States after North American Free Trade Area and China. These investments in East Asia represent over one third of the American wealth and amounts to a quarter of the global investments. The region has an approximated half a billion population, which is a good market given the fact that the market is the most critical factor in international economics. In 2002, studies show that the region alone consumed over $57 billion American goods and services.

Other regions, such as the ASEAN consumed an approximated $53 billion US goods and services in 2003. Large American multinational corporations have various investments in the East Asian region mainly because of stable security and adequate market. Indonesia hosts an approximated three-hundred America multinationals. Since Indonesia is a viable market for American goods and services, the state has always designed policies aimed at strengthening the relationships between the two governments. In 1997, Indonesia was badly affected by the financial crisis, but the United States intervened to restore the economy because it has a number of investments. Indonesia depends on the United States for markets while the US relies on Indonesia for production of goods given the fact that cheap labor and raw materials are readily available.

Before the 1997 financial cash crunch, Indonesia was considered one the strongest economies in the East Asian region. In fact, Przystup and Dori (21) projected that the economy of the country was twice that of Singapore and Hong Kong. The US provided an enabling environment that allowed Indonesian citizens and some American nationals to invest over $7.6 billion in Indonesia and $4 billion in the United States. These mutual relationships between the two countries provided over sixty-thousand jobs in the United States. In the current international system, Indonesia is ranked the twenty-first state in terms of exports to the United States. This has promoted the welfare of many people in the country. Other states, including China, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Philippines have also benefited from the US economic policies. Through the foreign direct investment, the United States invested over $8.8 billion in 2001 alone. Dalpino (2) noted that this was a defiance of the international foreign direct investment trend since the statistics showed that FDI was declining in many parts of the world. Even though foreign direct investments are accused of tempering with internal investment, it has numerous advantages that cannot be ignored. Indonesia and other states such as Singapore and Thailand are considered the Asian tigers mainly because of their strong relationships with the United States.

The American economic policies in Indonesia boosted various industries that private investors could not have ventured into mainly because of the costs. In particular, the US invested heavily in the mining industry, which is usually considered a long-term investment. Such industries attract little attention from domestic investors are usually interested in quick income generating businesses owing to insufficient capital. The US imports Indonesian crude oil and gas. The government of Indonesia depends majorly of oil sale for funding. This means that the US plays a critical role. Exxon and Unocal are the major oil companies that trade in oil in Indonesia. American companies such as Newmont and Freeport mining companies are some of the companies that engage in mining in Indonesia. These companies offer numerous jobs to the locals. Moreover, the exercise social corporate responsibility, which benefits the locals by providing schools, hospitals and other social amenities.

Politically, the effects of the United States to the Indonesian society have been negative because the government has always been forced to adopt the policies suggested by multinationals and American investors, but not the locals. It should be noted in this section that Indonesia has gone through various political challenges until 1997 when Suharto surrendered power. The US ensured that the successive government was friendly to its policies irrespective of whether the government would be responsive to the wishes of the majority in the country. In October 2003, President Bush visited Bali to deliver a special message from the American government, which insisted on the need for democracy and transformation. The president’s speech read in quote:

The success of Indonesia as a pluralistic and democratic state is essential to the peace and prosperity of this region. Indonesians profess many faiths and honor many traditions. Like Americans, you understand that diversity can be a source of strength. Your national motto, ’Unity in diversity,’ sounds a lot like our own ‘Out of many, one. Americans admire the way Indonesians maintain unity and balance modern ideas with ancient traditions and deep religious faith

Analysts noted that the president insisted on the importance of democracy because it could automatically bring about peace and economic development in the country. Przystup and Dori (43) observed that Indonesia is made up of an Islamic population, which is even larger than that of the entire Middle East. Since the United States is in the processes of transforming the Islamic world, including Afghanistan and Iraq, Indonesia is an important partner. The president insisted that Indonesia could prove to the world that democracy is compatible with the Islam. Moreover, the application of democracy in Indonesia and good governance could prove to other states emerging from autocracy and militaristic rule that transformation is possible. Indonesia is one of the Islamic countries that do not allow Islamic extremism and terrorism. To this extend, it becomes so strategic to the United States. In fact, parties that associate themselves with extremism in Indonesia have never secured any political seat. This is mainly because of the American influence. In 1999, a party affiliated to Islamic extremism received just thirty percent support meaning that the society is reluctant to accept the heinous acts of terrorism. In this regard, Indonesia is a key play as far as the fight against terrorism is concerned.

Rogue States: Iran and North Korea

Existing body of knowledge offers various alternatives to the American foreign policy makers regarding nuclear weapons threats that Iran and North Korea pose. There are gabs in the literature because some scholars and analysts observe that the United States should act unilaterally meaning that it should act as a world police in mitigating the nuclear problems while some observe that consultations would be the only viable approach. The existing literature proves that the spread of democracy is the only way in resolving the nuclear problem, even though the approaches differ. In one of the articles titled ‘the spread of nuclear weapons,’ Sagan and Waltz posed a major question regarding world security and peace. They ask the question, “What will the spread of nuclear weapons do to the world.” Waltz’s standpoint is that the spread of nuclear power would be productive to the world economy and the development of the world. For developing countries such as Iran and North Korea, their acquisition of nuclear power is productive since it would go a long way to uplift the living standards of the poor. His believe is that the deterrence policy and the rational actor model would be utilized effectively to prevent the occurrence of war owing to the possession of nuclear weapons. He even goes a notch higher to claim that the presence of nuclear weapons would make states more cautious because they are mutually assured of destruction.

With the acquisition of nuclear weapons, states would definitely drop their ambitions of producing conventional weapons. Moreover, states would cut military spending, as soon as they acquire nuclear energy, which is beneficial to the world security. Waltz advises that states should not stop arming themselves simply because the US instructs them not to acquire relevant weapons. The role of the US in this case is to enter into peaceful agreements with a state wishing to acquire nuclear energy, but not impeding the plans of the state. This is because the United States cannot offer protection to all states in the world hence the acquisition of nuclear energy should not be an issue of debate. To Waltz, the presence of nuclear weapons in the international system would reduce war and conflicts because it successfully reduced tension between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Sagan differs significantly with the views of Waltz because the deterrence notion and the rational actor model require the existence of some conditions, which are absent in the current international system. One of the major arguments of Sagan is that weak states such as Iran and North Korea do not have sufficient policies and mechanisms through which nuclear energy could be safeguarded. This means that nuclear energy could easily land into the hands of criminals and terrorists, which is extremely dangerous. The case could be different in case Iran and North Korea were democratic states. For the ideas of Waltz to be accepted, democracy must be restored in the two countries since an egalitarian society would not support the activities of destroyers of life and property. Weak states such as Iran and North Korea have no ability to implement policies that would prevent nuclear accidents and the spread of nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy should only be acquired by states governed by strong civilian governments, unlike North Korea and Iran, which are run either by dictators or by military regimes. States would not be cautious, as was the case in the Cold War because the international system is different.

A report released in 2006 by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism suggested that the United States had achieved a lot in terms of preserving its national interests, but more had to be done since terrorists had diversified their techniques and channels. This means that the US has to come up with additional strategies to ensure that the heinous acts of terrorists are curtailed. The report concluded that the state had achieved its interest of kicking out terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but much had to be done to ensure that the activities of other extremist organizations funded by states such as Iran and North Korea are stopped.

This means that Iran and North Korea pose a serious challenge to the international community because of the possession of nuclear power. The nuclear weapons could be used to destabilize the world economy and security, especially when it gets into the hands of terrorists. Iran and North Korea are suspected to support terrorism meaning that they can easily liaise with extremist organizations to cause havoc in the world. In this regard, the report gives some of the strategies that would help the state in fighting terrorism, including the ambitions of North Korea and Iran. It should be understood that the fight of terrorism is the advancement of freedom and human dignity because the main aim of terrorists is to destroy human life and property. The report rules out any possibility of poverty being the main cause of terrorism since Iran and North Korea have always claimed that the acquisition of nuclear power would help them elevate the levels of economic development.

To deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, the leadership of these two countries ought to be interrogated meaning that the US should come up with policies such as denying the government officials entry to the US and other allies. This would force them to comply since travelling sanctions would force them to comply with the internationally set standards. Another strategy entails preventing the attacks that would be launched by terrorists. This implies that the US government must come into terms with the reality that terrorism does not target only developed countries, but instead it could be committed in other countries that support the US. In this regard, the US government should offer technical and military support to other countries around the world to help them curb the issue of nuclear threat. For instance, India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear technologies, which is one of the strategies to counter the influence of North Korean and Iran in the region. The report also suggests that the US should ensure that the materials used in the manufacture of nuclear power should not reach the hands of criminals, including Iran and North Korea. To put this strategy into effect, the US government should determine the intentions, capabilities, and plans of Iran and North Korea as regards to the acquisition of nuclear power. The power could be used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, which is extremely dangerous to the world security. The sale of materials should be supervised closely.

A study conducted by Blum concluded that terrorists had shifted focus in terms of the targets and the techniques employed. However, he noted that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not within the reach of terrorists because the unavailability of materials and qualified personnel to design the weapons (Blum 135). His study concluded that terrorists were increasingly shifting focus to the Middle East because of the perception that some states in the region are sympathizers of the west. Moreover, terrorists have adopted a new approach of unleashing terror because they no longer kidnap, but instead they carry out suicide bombing. The study proved that terrorists have never resorted to the use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as the report released by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Blum’s study proved that terrorism had reformed mainly because of the emergence of extremist organizations. In this regard, Blum (136) suggested that the US should simply focus on promoting peace and democracy in the two countries, which would definitely end the acts of terrorism. This would demand for a multilateral action implying that other actors must be involved in the plan. In fact, Blum suggests that non-actors should be involved in ending the looming nuclear crisis, which is the main worry in regards to the utilization of the weapons of mass destruction.

A report released by the national security strategy in 2010 gave extensive plans on how the US would deal with actors in the international system considered a security threat. The plans proposed are mainly concerned with strengthening the instruments of the American government because disunity in government has always snatched the executive an opportunity to deal with Iran and North Korea as regards to the nuclear threats. In this regard, American leaders must understand what actually constitutes national security and work in harmony to realize these plans. To succeed in fighting North Korea and Iran, the approaches employed ought to be sustainable and achievable. It is noted that the US has been able to develop due to the establishment of strong institutions and technological advancement.

However, the government has been unable to act on the threats posed by other actors internationally because of the internal wrangles among government the branches of government. In particular, there are some unfinished reform agendas, which are hindering the capability of the government to deal with external challenges, such as the challenge of possession of nuclear power, which is a threat to world peace. In this regard, the three arms of government should be able to work in harmony to pass the important legislations that would give the executive the power to act swiftly. Terrorism and the threats of nuclear power are some of the problems that do not demand too much consultation because they are considered urgent. However, the US government does not have the power to act unilaterally since it must consult other non-state actors, including consideration of public opinion, which is time consuming.

The national strategy for homeland security report released in 2007 suggested that the government has to develop the technology sector if it were to contain the influence of world aggressors such as Iran and North Korea. The field of research should be developed because it supports the strategies that the government designs in keeping off the threats posed by enemies. Enemark is of the view that the topic on weapons of mass destruction should stop because the weapons have never existed in the international system. He notes that even though Iran and North Korea are accused of possessing nuclear power, they have not been in a position to develop weapons of mass destruction (Enemark 384). His major concern is with the use of language because its use may confuse policy makers when making effective policies meant to curb the threats posed by Iran and North Korea. The scholar suggests that policy makers should focus on formulating policies aimed at stopping Iran and North Korea from proceeding with their nuclear plan, but they should not incorporate the term weapons of mass destruction in their plans.


Purpose of collecting and analyzing data

From the literature review, the researcher gathered considerable amount of information about this field. Many of the reports that exist in this field are very resourceful as individuals of high integrity did them. The manner in which they were done also passes as good enough to be used in various aspects of research. However, this is a different research. It must be in a position to develop its own arguments based on data collected from primary sources. This does not rule out the importance of secondary sources of data. To ensure originality in any research, there is need to use primary data. The purpose of collecting data was to help facilitate analysis that would lead to giving answers that are desired in this research. The objective of this research was to respond to some of the questions that other scholars had not responded to through the existing literature. To be in a position to respond to these questions, there will be need to collect data. After successful collection of data, analysis would be very important. When taken from the field, data is considered raw and therefore cannot be of much help to the target audience. For this reason, it is important to analyze data to produce the desired result that would be useful to various individuals.

Role of literature review in data collection requirements

Literature review plays a vital role in data collection process. As noted above, research has been going on for some time now. Every field of study has some relevant bodies of literature that other researchers conducted before. This information is very important to the researcher. As Wisker (28) observes, in the process of gathering data, the first source that any researcher should not assume is the secondary sources of information. It is important to note that the studies were done after careful collection and analysis of relevant data. When taking literature review as part of the sources of data, it is important to note that they are secondary sources. Unlike the data that would be collected from the fields which is raw, literature provides data that is already processed.

According to Wickham (19), literature review plays an important role in determining how data collection would be done. Because the bodies of literature provide information that is already synthesized, and with clear steps that were taken to reach the results, the researcher may consider taking an approach used by one of the researchers that may lead to generation of required answers. Alternatively, the researcher may consider integrating a number of methods employed by different previous researchers to come up with his or her own technique that incorporates all the desirable concepts used by the available literature. A good research project should not purport to be basing its arguments on raw data. It is important that a researcher engage closely with the works of previous researchers from an early stage of data collection. With this, the researcher would be informing the consumers of the document that there was an effort from the earliest stage of the dissertation that closely compares the works of other researchers, and how they relate with the current research. This would not only enhance the validity of the report, but also demonstrate that the research seeks to develop the works of previous researches.

Quantitative research method

Quantitative research is a kind of study that utilizes figures to arrive at certain conclusions (Hakim 25). In this regard, the research will take the form of a survey, whereby the researcher identifies the sample population and posts questionnaires to them. In this research, there was need to compare the relationship between variables in order to establish the cause and effect. The researcher was interested in knowing how American foreign policies affect the economic and political affairs of a number of states in the international system. This demanded for a method that would be objective and able statistically to generalize the findings. Quantitative method was found to be the most appropriate method to use in this research.

Quantitative research involves systematic empirical study of a phenomenon by use of statistical tools. Its main objective is always to employ mathematical theories and models in developing its generalization (Anderson 39). Therefore, quantitative method would help in this research. It would enable the researcher to test the hypotheses put forth for validity and allow the use of a sample as a representation of the entire population. It would help the researcher to determine the impact of American foreign policies on behavior of other actors in the international system. It would unearth the role of the superpower in influencing the affairs of world. It is a fact that the behavior of states and other actors in the international system is always dictated by the policies of the superpower. Quantitative research will therefore help in determining the degree to which other actors in the international system would be willing to adjust their policies to adopt the new ones set by the superpower.

Although qualitative methods were traditionally used in social science, it is not able to give empirical support for research hypothesis if used in this study. Qualitative methods explain why a given pattern of event has taken place. On the other hand, quantitative methods explain what and when of a phenomena. Ethnographic research and phenomenology as approaches of qualitative research would have been appropriate. Ethnography would help in investigating the culture of the American society. Phenomenology would have helped investigate the realities facing the United States that forces it to come up with certain foreign policies. However, because the process may not empirically support the hypotheses put forward to help guide the research, it was not used in this research. Due to these reasons, qualitative method was not employed in the research and the researcher opted for quantitative research.

Scope of Data Collection

Primary data for this research was collected from the officials of various embassies representing various states in the United States and the American foreign policy makers in the ministry of state for foreign affairs. The data was collected with the help of the questionnaire. The scope of data collection was limited to the two categories of groups. This was because of the time that was available for the research. Because most employees were residents of the United States, they clearly understood the social structure of the American society and therefore were in a position to respond appropriately to questions regarding the effects of the foreign policies on their society and other societies. They also understood how this affected the performance of other states. The level of accuracy needed in this research would be achieved within this scope. Secondary data was gathered from existing literature about policy making processes in the United States. Analysis on how it is applied in the firm under the study, as our specific field of study was performed.

Format of the questionnaire

Questionnaire design

As earlier noted, there were two key methods used to gather information in this dissertation. The first one was through the questionaire, which was physically delivered to the staff of various embassies and officials of the foreign ministry. The questionaire sought to capture various attitudes of staff members in the foreign embassies and officials of the American government in the ministry of foreign affairs. The second source of information used for the research was literature on various aspects of foreign policy making and its effects on the global economy and politics. The focus of the literature review was to find information on the techniques utilized in generating policies in the United States and also to determine the current state of research in relation to the topic. The questionnaire had four parts.

The first part sought to capture the background information of respondents. The second part dealt with the demography and gender of the respondents. This was to ascertain the prevalence of views in varoius categories in order to ensure that if any difference came about, then they would be captured in their demographic space. The third part dealt with academic credentials and work experience of the respondents. The motivation for this section came from the understanding that different sections of population respond differently to issues, based on age and academic credentials. The fourth part delved into the specific issues relating to foreign policy making and its effects, starting from the understanding of the concept of foreign policy and how it has been relevant in changing the perception of various Americans towards other states.

The questionaire also employed a mix of open and closed ended questions to capture different aspects of issues studied. Open ended questions were used because they give respondents more time to figure out their opinions, which would make them volunteer more information related to feelings, outlooks and comprehension of the subject. This would allow a researcher to understand the position of respondents as regards to feelings. Open ended questions minimize some errors that could have been created in the course of research. Respondents rarely forget answers if given an opportunity to respond freely. Furthermore, respondents cannot ignore some questions because they must go through all of them. Open ended questions generate data that can be used in data analysis by other researchers. In other words, they allow secondary data analysis. On the other hand, closed-ended questions are analyzed easily. That is why they were used in this study. Each response can be coded for statistical interpretation. Nonetheless, closed-ended questions are compatible with computer analysis package. The technique is more specific meaning that its answers are consistent in all conditions. This aspect is impossible with open-ended questions because each respondent is allowed to use his or her own words. Finally, closed-ended questions take less time to administer unlike open-ended questions, which are detailed hence time consuming.

The questionnaire was sent to respondents using drop and pick method. The researcher arrived at this decision after considering time and reseources. The method is time consuming, but very effective. Furthmore, the method allows respondents to reflect on the questions and answer them accurately. Moreover, the method is not affected by the respondent’s level of literacy. One big advantage of the technique is that there is interaction between the researcher and the researched. This means that respondent’s reactions are easily captured. Reactions are important because they give more information regarding the feelings of respondents. The literature collected provided information regarding various theories related to transformational leadership, which is spread across the last century. The body of literature availed a number of theories dealing with sampling and sample designs in international relations and performance issues in the context of capital resource develpment. Finally, the literature provided information on the state of research on the American foreign policy. Various researchers have conducted studies on various elements of policy formulation and its effects on other states. This gave the study a sound academic backing and a strong basis for drawing comparisons and conclusions.

The use of the questionaire made it possible to capture issues that are unique to this field. This is because there was no accessible literature with required degree of relevance to the subject matter. The targeted population responded to the questionaires, which were physically delivered to them. The availability of staff in the embassies and in the foreign ministry offices influenced the choice of this method because the offices operate throughout the day and therefore it is not possible at any one time to find all of the staff in one place. Physical delivery of the questionnaire increased the accuracy of data collected as there was interactivity. After collection, the data went through analysis, culminating into the observations and conslusions discussed in chapter four and five respectively.

Sampling method used for this survey

There are some factors that should be put into consideration when choosing the right method of sampling in any given research project. In this research, precision was needed. The best method that would lead to the desired results was simple random sampling. As stated above, this method is simple to use and it is appropriate when one intends to use data quantitatively. The researcher settled on this method because the research population shows a general similarity, and therefore, there was no need to classify them into subgroups. Every member of the sample was to be given equal opportunity to participate in the research. Simple random sampling was appropriate because it eliminates all forms of bias in the sample selection process.

Data Analysis

Analysis of Research Hypotheses

According to Hoyle (67), every research in social science sets forth to prove that, a certain phenomena occurred for specific reasons and for a specific duration. Conducting a research is like a walk in the desert without a guiding map to show clear directions that should be taken in order to reach the desired direction. Hakim (2000), warns that care should be taken by every researcher when conducting a research to ensure that he or she does not go against the established path. Research hypotheses always provide a solution to this. Gupta (54) defines hypothesis as a proposition made by the researcher upon which the research would try to determine if it is true or otherwise. It is kind of a proposal or a guess that the findings of a particular research would result to something.

As Hoffman (101) notes, a research would always have two hypotheses for every single desired result. There is always the null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis. The null hypothesis would always refute the claim by saying that the proposition does not hold. On the other hand, alternative hypothesis would always try to affirm that the proposition set by the researcher holds. A test would always be conducted on the null hypothesis with an aim of rejecting it. By rebuffing a null assumption, the study would be acknowledging the alternative supposition. It is always every researcher’s desire to reject the null hypothesis because when a research accepts a null hypothesis, it would render the whole research unnecessary. It would be rejecting the proposition made by the researcher, a fact that would render the research null and void.

In analyzing the research hypotheses, the researcher would always set the significance level, which is always expressed as a percentage. This percentage would be the limit within which the researcher would accept a null hypothesis. If the limit were surpassed, it would be said that there is significant difference and therefore a null hypothesis is rejected. Setting the percentage too high would be increasing the chances of confirming a given hypothesis, but it would reduce the accuracy of the research. Setting this percentage too low would increase chances of rejecting the hypothesis and increases chances of accuracy. In most of the social sciences research, 5 percent is always acceptable as the standard significance level. As earlier stated in the assumptions, this study takes 5 percent as its significance level

The researcher would test this hypothesis by analyzing the data gathered from both the officials of the embassies and the views of policy makers in the ministry of foreign affairs.

Below are the three null hypotheses that the researcher wishes to test in order to accept the alternative hypothesis. This would help in validating this research.

H1a. American foreign policies influence the global affairs, which are related to politics and economics

This is the first hypothesis of this research whose confirmation would validate the need for this research. By accepting this hypothesis, it would be a clear sign that the research confirms that there is a significant relationship between American foreign policies and the behavior of states in the global arena regarding politics and economics. The researcher wishes to confirm this hypothesis.

It can be observed from the bar graph below that 51.4% of the employees of foreign ministries felt that they could trust the United States as far as making the world the safer place for all is concerned.

I can trust the United States policies as far making the world the safe place is concerned.

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly disagree 2 1.4 1.4
Disagree 7 4.9 6.3
Neither agree nor disagree 29 20.1 26.4
Agree 74 51.4 77.8
Strongly agree 32 22.2 100.0
Total 144 100.0
American foreign policies influence the global affairs, which are related to politics and economics
Graphical Presentation.

It is clear from the SPSS results presented in the table above that majority of the respondents feel that the United States has the capability of transforming the world into a safer place for everybody. Only 6.3 percent of the respondents rejected the alternative hypothesis above. By confirming the alternative hypothesis above, the research findings reject the null hypothesis, which state that

H0a. American foreign policies do not influence the global affairs, which are related to politics and economics.

Upon acceptance of the alternative hypothesis, its null hypothesis would automatically be rejected. The null hypothesis has been rejected by a wider margin. The researcher has therefore proved from the data gathered from the population sample that there is a relationship between the American policies and the behavior of states in the global system, as far as politics and economics are concerned. Having confirmed this hypothesis by a wide margin, the researcher consequently confirms that there is need to conduct the research that seeks to determine the relationship between American policies and the behavior of states in the global arena. This opens the door for the researcher to test other supportive hypotheses, which would further help in confirming this hypothesis.

The next hypothesis was formulated to determine the relationship between American policies and the economic development in the world.

H2a. American policies boost the economic growth of many states in the world.

From the table below, it can be observed that 47.9% of the respondents agreed, while 29.2 % strongly agreed with the fact that American policies are associated with economic developments in the world. This means that 3.5% disagreed with the alternative hypothesis above.

I have full confidence in American foreign policies as regards to the growth of economies of many states in the world.

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Disagree 5 3.5 3.5
Neither agree nor disagree 28 19.4 22.9
Agree 69 47.9 70.8
Strongly agree 42 29.2 100.0
Total 144 100.0

The above data can be presented graphically, as shown below.

The above data
Source: Developed from the findings of this research.

It is clear from the graph above that there is a relationship between American foreign policies and economic development in many. When the United States attempts to engage other states in economic development, the result is always a global economic strength, which cannot be easily affected by global crises. This means that the null hypothesis below is rejected.

H20. American policies do not boost the economic growth of many states in the world.

The null hypothesis above shows that there is no relationship between American foreign policies and economic development of many states in the world, which is always the view of some scholars. This is particularly the view of Marxists and world system theorists who believe that there is always development in the center or the core and underdevelopment in the periphery.

The hypothesis below was developed to ascertain the level at which American foreign policies affect political processes of many states in the world.

H3a. American foreign policies influence the political developments of many states in the world.

Change is one of the most important that enhance peace and development. The political class always resists change because it interferes with the status quo. However, the United States has always ensured that it encourages states to embrace political change through processes such as democracy. Change will always start with the change of government. From the table below, it can be observed that 75.7% (41.7 +34.0 %) of the population feels that the United States has influenced states to adapt well to political changes, including adoption of democracy. This hypothesis was specifically developed to analyze the views of staff of the foreign countries. The null hypothesis is:

H30. American foreign policies do not influence the political developments of many states in the world.

Do the US policies affect political processes in your home countries?

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Never 2 1.4 1.4
Rarely 5 3.5 4.9
Sometimes 28 19.4 24.3
Often 60 41.7 66.0
Always 49 34.0 100.0
Total 144 100.0

Source: Analysis of survey data.

The above data can be presented in a graph as shown below.

Do the US policies affect political processes in your home countries?
Source: Analysis of survey data.

Analysis of Literature

Existing body of knowledge proves that the United States has come a long way as far as foreign policy making is concerned. Policy makers have been relying on the views and practices of previous leaders in making current policies. This is referred to the American foreign policy tradition belong it always follows a certain criteria. Analysis of the available also proves that the country has not always made policies that put it in an advantaged position in the global arena. However, some traditions have always been relied upon to strengthen the influence of the state in the international politics and economics. The policies of subsequent presidents and other leaders have been built over years to become what is now referred to as the American tradition. In the literature section, the works of Mead shows clearly that the United States relies on the views of leaders in making foreign policies.

Such policies are usually pragmatic as compared to other policies that are usually based on theories, such as those of Hitler in Germany. The idea that it is not the interest of the US to bail out collapsing economies is prove that economic interests drive foreign policy makers to engage in such actions. Through political traditions, American foreign policy makers rarely apply policies that are new to the nation. The ideas of Mead suggest that some factors have enabled the US to design effective policies that give it an upper hand in the global politics. These factors include the constitution, the presence of a strong congress, the role of strong institutions, and the region. The two main American foreign policy doctrines are isolationism and containment, which were applied at different times, based on the nature of the international system. The multi-polarity nature of the international system demanded isolationism while the change of the system to bipolarity called for containment.

Literature review confirms that the effects of the United States foreign policies on other actors in the international system are enormous. In the Asian region, the US has taken over major economic operations, particularly in the mining sector. This is an advantage to other states because the sector demands huge sums of money, without potential short-term benefits. The region has been able to expand its road networks and other infrastructural designs because the proceeds trick down to the common citizen. In Indonesia, the US has set up various companies and organizations that offer employment to the locals, as well as foreigners. Literature review shows that the US is attracted to a region with stable security and adequate market, such as the East Asian region. The influence of the US in the rogue states is rather different because it employs various policies in containing terrorism and the threats of weapons of mass destruction. In Iran and North Korea, the US employed at one point negotiations and enticements, but they all flopped forcing it to employ the policy of isolationism.


Foreign policy making in the United States is always considered high politics meaning that the populace is not involved in the process. Moreover, the United States employs both multilateralism and unilateralism in making its foreign policies, depending on the seriousness of the event. After the 9/11 incident, the United States employed unilateralism by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and flush out members of the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda groups who were accused of exercising the heinous acts of terrorism. The actions of the United States have always affected the behavior of other actors in the international system given the fact that it is the current superpower. Even though studies show that the state has not been performing well as regards to foreign policy formulation, it has always succeeded in achieving its interests. The findings from literature review and the data collected through questionnaires prove that the United States has been successful in asserting its position in the global arena. Review of literature related to the Indonesian-American relations proves that the Bush administration utilized all available techniques to improve the economic and political ties between the two countries. In fact, this has been the trend since the state enticed North Korea and Iran through economic boom to force them to quit their nuclear energy programs.

Even though this strategy was impractical, the United States has always maintained its presence in the Middle East region through force. Results from the data collected proved that the United States influences the political and economic affairs of many states in the world. This is made possible through ensuring territorial integrity of its partners, drafting antiterrorism bills, giving out economic incentives to rogue states, improving trade relations among states, reforming a number of sectors, and ensuring that the rule of law is guaranteed. However, it should be remembered that the main driving force is the national interest meaning that the US ensures peacefully coexistence among states in order to further its national interests. Regarding American tradition, the findings of literature review proves that the state is shifting from what was initially referred to as the Old Testament to the New Testament whereby the United States involves itself in global issues. Clinton is one of the contemporary leaders who advocated for globalization since it boosts the interests of the Americans globally.

Works Cited

Anderson, Jonathan. Assignment and thesis writing. Cape Town: Juta, 2009. Print.

Blum, Andrew. “Non-state Actors, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.” International Studies Review, 7.1 (2005): 133-170. Print.

Dalpino, Catharine. Indonesia at the crossroads. Washington: Brookings Institution, 2001. Print.

Enemark, Christian. “Farewell to WMD: The Language and Science of Mass Destruction.” Contemporary Security Policy, 32.2 (2011):382-400. Print.

Fulbright, William. The Arrogance of Power. New York: Random House, 1967. Print.

Gupta, Peter. Statistical Methods. New Delhi: Sultan Chand & Sons, 2002. Print.

Hakim, Catherine. Research Design: Successful Designs for Social and Economic Research. London: Routledge, 2000. Print.

Hartz, Louis. The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought since the Revolution. New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1955. Print.

Hoffman, Esther. Postgraduate research guidelines. Vanderbijlpark: Vaal Triangle Technikon, 2001. Print.

Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition. New York: Vintage, 1948. Print.

Hoyle, Rick. Research methods in social relations. Fort Worth: Wadsworth, 2002. Print.

Lipset, Seymour. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996. Print.

McDougall, Walter. Promised Land, Crusader State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. Print.

Mead, Walter. Special Providence: The American Foreign Policy Tradition. New York, Routledge, 2002. Print.

Przystup, James, and Dori, John. Indonesia after Suharto: How the U.S. can foster political and economic reform. Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 1998. Print.

Sagan, Scott, and Kenneth Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003. Print.

Smith, Tony. A Pact with the Devil: Washington’s Bid for World Supremacy & the Betrayal of the American Promise. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Steigerwald, David. “The Reclamation of Woodrow Wilson.” Diplomatic History, 23.1 (1999): 79-99.

Wickham, Sharman. Towards a postgraduate identity: guidelines for MA and PhD supervisors and their students: workbook. Cape Town: Research and Academic Development, 1999. Print.

Wisker, Gina. The postgraduate research handbook: succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD. New York: Macmillan, 2008. Print.