Foreign relations of the United States

The foreign relations of the United States are highly influential on the world stage. America's global reach is backed by a 13 trillion dollar economy. ^[1] Military intervention and deployments have been persistent components of U.S. foreign policy, see List of United States military history events, as have covert actions for regime change, see covert U.S. regime change actions.

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." ^[2] In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation."^[3]. American foreign policy has been the subject of much debate, criticism and praise both domestically and abroad.

Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.^[4] The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces once they are deployed, however Congress has the sole authority to declare war,^[5] and the civilian and military budget is written by the Congress.^[6] The Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

The quality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel words.

Capt. William Bainbridge paying tribute to the Dey of Algiers, circa 1800.

From the establishment of the United States after the American Revolution until the Spanish-American War, U.S. foreign policy reflected the country's regional, as compared to global, focus.

During the American Revolution, the United States established relations with several European powers, convincing France, Spain, and the Netherlands to intervene in the war against Britain, a mutual enemy. After the revolution, the U.S. moved to restore peace and resume its substantial trade with Great Britain in what is called the "Olive Branch Policy". Following French involvement in the Revolution, led by Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette, the United States maintained significant relations with France, as manifested by France presenting the United States with the Statue of Liberty in 1886.

In general, though, the United States followed an isolationist foreign policy until attacks against U.S. shipping by Barbary Coast corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801. Early politicians debated the wisdom of developing a navy and becoming involved in international affairs, but the United States Navy was created to prevent further economic losses: payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary pirate states amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800. Following that conflict, the United States engaged in a quasi-war with France and the War of 1812 with Great Britain.

In response to the new independence of Spanish colonies in Latin America in the early 1800s, the United States established the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, a policy declaring its opposition to European interference in the Americas. Around the same time, U.S. expansion, ideologically fueled by "manifest destiny", led to war against Mexico, with the U.S. taking what are now the territories of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, and to diplomatic conflict with Britain and Russia over the Oregon Territory and with Spain over Florida and later Cuba. In 1854, the U.S. used its Navy to force Japan to allow international trade. During the American Civil War, the Union states accused Britain and France of supporting the Confederate States.

After the end of British military persuasion in 1815, consolidating its territories following the Civil War and the withdrawal of the last remnants of French influence in the region in 1867 when Mexican forces deposed Emperor Maximillian, the United States was unchallenged regionally. This stability, combined with the country's natural resources and growing population, resulted in substantial domestic prosperity and growth of geopolitical influence.

In 1898, the United States ejected the last colonial power from the Americas while shifting from a regional to global power with the acquisition of the Philippines and Guam. The 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaiming a right for the United States to intervene to stabilize weak states in the region, further weakened European influence in Latin America and established U.S. regional hegemony.

Despite its reluctance to involve itself in continental European affairs, the United States entered World War I after making substantial loans to the Allies and after attacks by German U-boats substantially interfered with U.S. shipping. In the peace conference at Versaille, U.S. attempts to shift international relations to an idealist model became bogged down in the secret agreements made during the war and geopolitical horse-trading. U.S. politics also turned against idealist, international policies and the country returned to a more isolationist stance. The United States benefited from its expanded role in international commerce but did not participate in international institutions like the League of Nations.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President George W. Bush

The United States entered World War II in 1941, again on the Allied side, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war against the U.S. by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Similarly to WWI, the United States made significant loans to the Allies and its domestic industries boomed to produce war materials. After the war and devastation of its European rivals, the United States completed its transition from regional to global hegemon alongside the Soviet Union. The United States was a major player in the establishment of the United Nations and became one of five permanent members of the Security Council.

From around 1947 until 1991, U.S. foreign policy was characterized by the Cold War. Seeking an alternative to its isolationist policies after WWI, the United States defined itself against the spread of Soviet communism in a policy called Containment. The Cold War was characterized by a lack of global wars but a persistence of regional wars, often fought between client states of the United States and Soviet Union. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy objectives seeking to limit Soviet influence involved the United States and its allies in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the overthrow of the Iranian government, and diplomatic actions like the opening of China and establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It also sought to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Britain as a global power, leading international economic organizations such as GATT. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. had military and economic interests in every region of the globe. Despite claims by George Kennan that his idea of Containment had been misused by hawkish policymakers to justify non-peaceful objectives, Containment provided stability for U.S.-international commerce, fostered national security and pushed the United States toward an internationalist policy despite the political popularity of isolationism.

August 1991 marked both the collapse of the Soviet Union and the initiation of the Gulf War against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. After the Iraq War, many scholars, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, claim the lack of a new strategic vision for U.S. foreign policy resulted in many missed opportunities for its foreign policy. During the 1990s, the United States mostly scaled back its foreign policy budget while focusing on its domestic economic prosperity. The United States also participated in U.N. peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the United States declared a "War on Terrorism", defining itself against terrorism similarly to how it had defined itself against communism in the Cold War. Since then, the United States launched wars against Afghanistan and Iraq (Second Gulf War) while pursuing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations on a global level. Currently, the United States still has forces in Afghanistan and Iraq despite unfavorable domestic public opinion, especially concerning Iraq.[1]

Map indicating states and territories with which the U.S. has no official diplomatic relations.

President of the United States, George W. Bush (right) at Camp David in March 2003, hosting the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The United States has one of the largest diplomatic presences of any nation. Almost every country in the world has both a U.S. embassy and an embassy of its own in Washington, D.C. Only a few countries do not have formal diplomatic relations with the United States. They are:

Bhutan (The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India has consular responsibilities for Bhutan)^[7]
Cuba
Iran (the ambassador of Switzerland acts as intermediary between Tehran and Washington DC)
North Korea
Somalia (no widely recognized government)
Republic of China (recognized by fewer than 30 countries, including the Holy See of Vatican City)
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) (not recognized)

In practical terms however, this lack of formal relations do not impede the U.S.'s communication with these nations. In the cases where no U.S. diplomatic post exists, American relations are usually conducted via the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, or another friendly third-party. In the case of the Republic of China (Taiwan), de-facto diplomatic relations are conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan. The U.S. also operates an "Interests Section in Havana". While this does not create a formal diplomatic relationship, it fulfils most other typical embassy functions.

The U.S. maintains a Normal Trade Relations list and several countries are excluded from it, which means that their exports to the United States are subject to significantly higher tariffs.

Further information: special relationship

Further information: anglosphere

A map of allies of the United States
NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions Major non-NATO allies, plus Republic of China (Taiwan) Signatories of Partnership for Peace with NATO

The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 26 nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. This is restricted to within the North American and European areas, and for this reason the U.S. was not compelled to participate in the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

The United States has also given major non-NATO ally-status to fourteen nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

In recent years, relations between the United States and India, have improved. Shown here are Indian PM Manmohan Singh and George Bush exchanging handshakes in March, 2006.

The country's closest ally is arguably the United Kingdom, although Australia and Canada have also proved to be extremely resilient allies.^{[citation needed]}

Other allies include South Korea, Israel, Germany, Turkey, and Japan. The island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan), does not have official diplomatic relations recognized and is no longer officially recognized by the State Department of the United States, but it conducts unofficial diplomatic relations through their de-facto Embassy, commonly known as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)," and is considered to be a strong Asian ally of the United States.

In 2005, U.S. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a landmark agreement between the two countries on civilian nuclear energy cooperation. The deal is significant because India is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and detonated a nuclear device in 1974. The deal will greatly increase strategic and economic cooperation between the world's two largest democracies^[8].

US State secretary Condoleezza Rice signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement with Bulgaria, a new NATO member, in 2006. The treaty allows the US (not NATO) to develop as joint US-Bulgarian facilities the Bulgarian air bases at Bezmer (near Yambol) and Graf Ignatievo (near Plovdiv), the Novo Selo training range (near Sliven), and a logistics centre in Aytos, as well as to use the commercial port of Burgas. At least 2,500 US personnel will be located there. The treaty also allows the US to use the bases "for missions in tiers country without a specific authorization from Bulgarian authorities," and grants US militaries immunity from prosecution in this country ^[9]. Another agreement with Romania permits the US to use the Mihail Kogălniceanu base and another one nearby ^[9].

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Main article: United States-Latin American relations

Concerns have been raised following both the signature of a military training agreement with Paraguay, which accorded immunity to U.S. soldiers from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and was indefinitely renewable (something which had never been done before, while Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Paraguay and, for the first time ever, Paraguayan president Nicanor Duarte Frutos went to the White House), and the construction of a U.S. military base near the airport of Mariscal Estigarribia, within 200 km of Argentina and Bolivia and 300 km of Brazil. The airport can receive large planes (B-52, C-130 Hercules, etc.) which the Paraguayan Air Force does not possess. ^[10] ^[11]. The governments of Paraguay and the United States subsequently ostensibly declared that the use of an airport (Dr Luís María Argaña International)[2] was one point of transfer for few soldiers in Paraguay at the same time. According to the Argentine newspaper Clarín, the U.S. military base is strategic because of its location near the Triple Frontier, its proximity to the Guaraní Aquifer, and its closeness to Bolivia (less than 200 km) at the same "moment that Washington's magnifying glass goes on the Altiplano [Bolivia] and points toward Venezuelan [president] Hugo Chávez — the regional devil according to the Bush administration — as the instigator of the instability in the region" (El Clarín ^[11]). In October 2006, US President George W. Bush was reported to be negotiating for purchase of a 400 km² ranch near Marriscal Estigarribia ^[12]^[13].

But Paraguay decided in October 2006 not to renew the immunity granted to US soldiers. The other members of the Mercosur trade bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela) have so far refused to grant immunity to U.S. troops. All four nations have in recent years elected leftist governments critical of U.S. policy (Lula in Brazil, Nestor Kirschner in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela) ^[14]

Puerto Rico's relation to the United States is considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization to constitute a colonial imposition since the United States does not allow Puerto Ricans their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Puerto Ricans are subject to laws passed by the United States Congress without their consent and they are excluded from elections to Congress and President. However, they are American citizens, have regional elections, and have themselves repeatedly rejected complete independence.^[15] According to the U.S. President's Task Force Report on the Political Status of Puerto Rico,^[16] (which was expressly endorsed by the George W. Bush Administration), the extent of United States power over Puerto Rico is so great, that the U.S. may dispose of Puerto Rico by transferring it to any other sovereign country as a mere disposition of property.^[17]^[18] This view is shared by many supporters of independence and statehood for this Caribbean archipelago, as well as by supporters of an "enhanced" Commonwealth status. However, some other Puerto Ricans do not agree with this perception. In a recent letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Head of Government of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, accused the United States of having deceived the United Nations and the international community in 1953, when it succeeded in having the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico recognized as a provisional decolonized status subject to continued monitoring; Acevedo-Vila claimed that it was ironic that this is the position taken by the Government of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, and furthermore, that the Governor of Puerto Rico will soon feel forced to support Iran's claims regarding the U.S. government's alleged-hypocritical actions with regards to Puerto Rico's "colonial" status.^[19]^[20]

The quality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel words.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (November 2007)

This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Critics of U.S. foreign policy point out the contradiction between the lofty foreign policy rhetoric of noble causes espoused by the government and its actions which are seen as machiavelian and hypocritical. [3] [4][5][6][7][8]

These include:

The long list of U.S. military involvements that stand in contrast to the rhetoric of promoting peace and respect for the sovereignty of nations.
The many former and current dictatorships that receive or have received U.S. financial or military support, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, despite the U.S. claiming to support democracy and democratic principles.
The U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood,^{[citation needed]} steel^{[citation needed]} and agricultural products, in contrast to stating support for free trade.
Claims of generosity, in contrast to low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries (taking into consideration only government foreign aid, and not donations through private charities)
Lack of support for environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol.
Frequent mention of concern for human rights, despite refusing to ratify the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the widespread support of dictatorial governments whose military the US may have formerly trained on methods of torture (notably in the infamous former School of the Americas), and support for paramilitary organizations, for example the Contras in Nicaragua.

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with George W. Bush inspects the Malacanang Palace Honor Guards during the latter's 8-hour State Visit to the Philippines in October 2003

Charges of negative influence have been levied even in countries traditionally considered allies of the United States.^[21]

There are a variety of responses to these criticisms. For instance, some argue that the increased American military involvement around the world is an outgrowth of the inherent instability of the world state system as it existed in the late 19th century. The inherent failings of this system led to the outbreak of World War I and World War II. The United States has assumed a prominent peacekeeping role, on its own terms, due to the easily demonstrable inter-state insecurity that existed before 1945.

Further, some opinions have stated that since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a war to defend against an imminent threat, but rather a war of aggression, and therefore under the Nuremberg Principles it constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow.^{[citation needed]} For example, Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[22] Similarly, under the United Nations Charter, ratified by the U.S. and therefore binding on it, all U.N. member states including the U.S. are prohibited from using force against fellow member states (Iraq is a member of the U.N.) except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit U.N. Security Council authorization (U.N. Charter; international law). "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war.^[23] A frequent rebuttal to this criticism is the assertion that the United Nations gave the United States and its coalition partners the legal authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, providing that Iraq would "face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Other realist critics, such as George F. Kennan, have argued that the responsibility of the United States is only to protect the rights of its own citizens, and that therefore Washington should deal with other governments on that basis alone. Realists charge that a claimed heavy emphasis on democratization or nation-building abroad was one of the major tenets of President Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic philosophy (despite not being mentioned in Wilson's Fourteen Points)^{[citation needed]}, and the failure of the League of Nations to enforce the will of the international community in the cases of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in the 1930s, as well as the inherent weakness of the new states created at the Paris Peace Conference, demonstrated the folly of Wilson's idealism. However, an important explanation for the weakness of the League of Nations was the refusal of the U.S. to join the organization, driven primarily by strong renewed isolationist sentiment at home.

There is also criticism of alleged human rights abuse, the most important recent examples of which are the multiple reports of alleged prisoner abuse and torture at U.S.-run detention camps in Guantánamo Bay (at "Camp X-ray") (in Cuba), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), secret CIA prisons (eastern Europe), and other places voiced by, e.g. the Council of Europe and Amnesty International. Amnesty International in its Amnesty International Report 2005 [9] says that: "the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times" [10]. This Amnesty report also claimed that there was a use of double standards in the U.S. government: the U.S. president "has repeatedly asserted that the United States was founded upon and is dedicated to the cause of human dignity". (Theme of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2004). But some memorandums emerged after the Abu Ghraib scandal "suggested that the administration was discussing ways in which its agents could avoid the international ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment" [11]. Government responses to these criticisms include that Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and the network of secret CIA jails in Eastern Europe and the Middle East were largely isolated incidents and not reflective of general U.S. conduct, and at the same time maintain that coerced interrogation in Guantánamo and Europe is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.

U.S. generosity is not demonstrated in the relatively low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries. However as far as measured by goods and monetary amounts the U.S is the most generous. Religious tithes, emergency donations to relief organizations, and donations to medical research, for example, are common and frequent. The United States tax code structure is designed to further this type of charitable donation by private individuals and corporations.

Regarding support for various dictatorships, especially during the Cold War, a response is that the alternatives were usually even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. It is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations the population often lack literacy, education, and are otherwise too poor to be able to fully participate in a democratic process. Thus, it is argued that supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth may be the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually leads to democratization. Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.^{[citation needed]}

Many of the U.S.'s former enemies have democratized, and many have become U.S. allies. The Philippines (1946), South Korea (1948), West Germany (1949), Japan (1952), Austria (1955), the Panama Canal Zone (1979), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), the Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples of former possessions that have gained independence. Many nations in Eastern Europe have joined NATO. (Note, statements regarding degree of democracy are based on the classification at these times in the Polity data series).

Many democracies have voluntary military alliances with United States. See NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.[12][13]

Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health."[14] According to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other."^[24] In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken political reforms.[15]

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools[16],although its commitment to human rights is disputed by human rights organizations.^[25]^[26] Examples of these tools are as follows:

A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" in compliance with a 2002 law which requires the Department to report on actions taken by the U.S. Government to encourage respect for human rights.[17]
A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices."[18]
In 2006 the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards."[19]
The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.[20]
The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly-confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[21]

The United States is involved with several territorial disputes, including maritime disputes with Canada over the Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Northwest Passage, and areas around Machias Seal Island and North Rock. ^[27] These disputes have become dormant recently, and are largely considered not to affect the strong relations between the two nations.

Other disputes include:

The U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, which is leased from Cuba. Only mutual agreement or U.S. abandonment of the area can terminate the lease. Cuba contends that the lease is invalid as the Platt Amendment creating the lease was included in the Cuban Constitution under threat of force and thus is voided by article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Haiti claims Navassa Island.
The U.S. has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other nation.
The Marshall Islands claim Wake Island.

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to halt imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts date back to at least 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement which prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries.

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005 [22], the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous twelve months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown marijuana continues. The U.S. believes that The Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

The U.S. provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia.

Of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.^[28]

The quality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel words.

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

Further information: Democratic peace theory

Further information: Iran Freedom and Support Act

In the history of the United States, presidents have often used democracy as a justification for military intervention abroad,^[29]^[30], although on a number of other occasions the U.S. overthrew democratically elected governments (See Operation Ajax, Operation PBSUCCESS, Covert U.S. Regime Change Actions). A number of studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Most studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the history of the United States exporting democracy.^[31] Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."^[32]^[33]

But some studies, such as a study by Tures find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,^[31] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.^[34]

Professor Paul W. Drake explains that the United States first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argues that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." Democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and American leaders usually defined democracy as elections only. Further the United States Department of State disapproved of any rebellion of any kind, which were often incorrectly labeled "revolutions", even against dictatorships.^[35] As historian Walter LaFeber states, "The world's leading revolutionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century."^[36]

Mesquita and Downs evaluate the period between 1945 to 2004. They state that the U.S. has intervened in 35 countries, and only in one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within 10 years.^[37] Samia Amin Pei argues that nation building in developed countries usually begins to unravel four to six years after American intervention ends. Pei, quoting Polity, (a database on democracy in the world), agrees with Mesquita and Downs that most countries where the U.S. intervenes never become a democracies or become more authoritarian after 10 years.^[38]

Professor Joshua Muravchik argues that U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after World War II, but America's failure to build democracy in the third world "prove...that U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."^[39]^[40] The success of democracy in former Axis countries maybe because of these countries per-capita income. Steven Krasner of the CDDRL states that a high per capita income may help build a democracy, because no democratic country with a per-capita income which is above $6,000 has ever become an autocracy.^[35]

Tures examines 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. A plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy. In 69 instances the country became less democratic after the intervention. In the remaining 63 cases, a country became more democratic.^[31]

Hermann and Kegley find that American military interventions which are designed to protect or promote democracy increase freedom in those countries.^[34] Penceny argues that the democracies created after military intervention are still closer to an autocracy than a democracy, quoting Przeworski "while some democracies are more democratic than others, unless offices are contested, no regime should be considered democratic."^[41] Therefore, Penceny concludes, it is difficult to know from the Hermann and Kegley study whether U.S. intervention has only produced less repressive autocratic governments or genuine democracies.^[42]

Penceny states that the United States has attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 twentieth-century military interventions.^[43] Penceny argues that proliberal policies after military intervention have a positive impact on democracy.^[44]

“

No state has more consistently proclaimed its adherence to this liberal vision of the international system than the United States.^[45]

”

“

Electorism is the faith (widely held by U.S. policymakers) that merely holding elections will channel political action into peaceful contests among elites and accord public legitimacy to the winners in there contests. Electorism requires that foreign or domestic elites do some political engineering to produce the most common surface manifestations of a democratic polity--parties, electoral laws, contested campaigns, and the like. Yet this sort of tinkering, however will-intended, cannot by itself produce the consensus...which must underlie any enduring democracy.^[46]

”

Highly decorated Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, who in 1934 exposed a plot to mount a coup against the Roosevelt administration, was a popular lecturer on the left-wing circuit who claimed:

“

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.^[47]

”

History of U.S.
expansion and influence