Running Head: CURRENT EVENTS AND U.S. DIPLOMACY 1

Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy

Kevin Taylor

Professor Randy Hallman

POL 300

May 24, 2012

CURRENT EVENTS AND U.S. DIPLOMACY 2

Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy

1. Summarize events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about

in the first paper since the end of the Cold War.

Well, it really all depends on what you would consider to be the “end of the Cold War.” There

seems to be different perspectives of when the war ended, but many are saying that the war

ended in 1991 so I’ll start from there. During the eight years of the post-Cold War period

(during both the Bush and Clinton administrations), American policy toward Russia was based

on the premise that Russia could be integrated into the Western-based international system.

Integrating Russia into this system would have two benefits, according to policy. First, the

system itself would serve as incentive for both internal reform and the transition from Soviet

communism. Second, by favoring these sorts of internal Russian changes—even if only at the

margins—international integration would help to create a Russia with interests that would be

generally more similar to those of the leading Western countries.(C. Wallander, 1999). The end

of the Cold War saw the fall of the Soviet Union which ultimately caused great problems in the

Soviet Union. The Soviet Union could not keep the people happy and would not give them right

or material wealth. The aftermath of the Cold War continues to influence world affairs. After

the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the post-Cold War world was widely considered as one-

sided, with the United States the sole remaining superpower. (Blum, 2006).

2. Identify and describe the current relationship between the US and one (1) of the countries

you wrote about in the first paper.

A 2009 “reset” helped improve relations between Russia and United States, but there still exists a

CURRENT EVENTS AND US DIPLOMACY 3

divide over a variety of issues, particularly a US missile defense shield in Europe. Russia is

wary of any potential US military action (Reuters) against Iran, and has also blocked the

UNSecurity Council (BBC) from voting on a draft resolution calling for a transfer of power in

Syria, a resolution the United States strongly supports. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s

expected return to the presidency in 2012 (Reuters) could undermine some of the advances in

relations made in conjunction with current President Dmitry Medvedev, who is known for less

nationalistic rhetoric. The reset has, however, yielded some significant breakthroughs on trade

and reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles. In particular, Russia’s recent accession to the World

Trade Organization could strengthen economic ties between the two nations. In addition, after

the reset, Russia allowed NATO (Wall Street Journal) to ship supplies through the country to

Afghanistan, providing a safer route than the main passageway through Pakistan. However,

Russia’s objections to the proposed missile shield for Europe—which the United States wants in

order to defend against a potential attack by Iran—led it to threaten to cut off that supply route as

well as deploy its own missiles (New York Times) and withdraw from a nuclear arms reduction

treaty in late 2011. Some GOP candidates see Russia as a potential competitor and a security

challenge, while others take an approach similar to President Obama’s in looking for

opportunities for improvement on issues such as trade.

3. Select a country you did not write about in the first paper, and describe the current US

diplomatic approach to the country.

Between May 20 and May 21, North Atlantic Treaty Organization heads of state will convene in

Chicago to hammer out decisions regarding the handover of responsibility for securing

Afghanistan to local forces and the removal of the bulk of foreign troops from Afghanistan by

CURRENT EVENTS AND US DIPLOMACY 4

the end of 2014. For the past 18 months, the Obama administration has rightly pressed a strategy

of transition in Afghanistan reducing the US military presence and encouraging Afghan

responsibility. Recognizing that a sustainable transition also requires a political settlement

among Afghanistan’s diverse factions, the administration has also sought to facilitate an Afghan

peace process through outreach to insurgent elements and the Afghan government. On May 1,

2012, President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai took a step forward with this

vision of transition by signing the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States

and Afghanistan. This agreement outlines a set of mutual commitments between the two

countries, with the goal of shifting the long-term relationship toward a more “normalized” one

following the withdrawal of the majority of US troops in 2014. But current transition planning,

while correct in its broad strategic strokes, continues to focus too heavily on the military

components of the plan and in particular on the Afghan National Security Forces. Missing from

the NATO conference’s agenda and US government planning efforts is a meaningful discussion

of the political dimensions of the transition-how NATO’s security transition and international

troop drawdown will affect the tenuous power balance that has existed in the country since 2001

among Afghanistan’s various factions and how the security transition will sync with the

impending political transition, when Afghans go to the polls for the 2014 presidential election.

4. Contrast and compare the two (2) relationships.

After the fall of the Taliban, the US supported the emergence of a broad-based government,

representative of all Afghans, and actively encouraged a US role in the national reconciliation

process in Afghanistan. The US has made a long-term commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild

itself after years of war. The US and others in the international community currently provide

CURRENT EVENTS AND US DIPLOMACY 5

resources and expertise to Afghanistan in a variety of areas, including humanitarian relief and

assistance, capacity building, security needs, counter-narcotic programs, and infrastructure

projects. The US feels as if they’ve done something right by declaring war on Afghanistan, but

many other nations disagree because Osama Bin Laden was accused of orchestrating the 9/11

attacks without concrete evidence. Afghanistan has offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US

could prove that he planned the attacks, and so far there is no evidence. Comparing the attacks

on Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, the US are now seen as bullies. In fact, it is said that the

US attacked these countries to take their oil and other resources. Plus, someone had to take the

blame for the 9/11 attacks. Many US allies have refused to participate in attacking other Middle-

Eastern countries. You have to think about all of the innocent people who were wrongfully

murdered, raped, tortured and humiliated by US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Overall, the

relationship between the US and Afghanistan appear to be somewhat shaky. Afghanistan will

never forget the extensive and violent war against them, and the US will never forget how much

money was/is still being invested in overseas operations.

5. Using the two (2) countries as examples, summarize how the US has changed the way it

relates to other countries in the last 20 years.

Over the last 20 years the US hasn’t really changed much in the way that it relates to other

countries. The early 90s marked the end of the Cold War which was followed by a recession. In

late 1992 came the presidential election of Bill Clinton. After the major war and attacks on

Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has provided millions of dollars in foreign aid to these countries.

The US has been providing foreign aid to other countries for a long time. As previously

mentioned, many US allies are in disagreement with the US because of the invasion of Iraq. As

CURRENT EVENTS AND US DIPLOMACY 6

the US now pushes for a war with Iran, it appears that doing so will spark tensions with China,

Russia and several other foreign nations. It has been said that an attack on Iran could be the

starting point for World War 3. If the US moves forward with this idea, the decision would

produce several negative results when it comes to foreign relations. Attacking or invading Iran

will not be as easy to do as it was with Iraq.

CURRENT EVENTS AND US DIPLOMACY 7

References

Wallander, C. (1999). Russian-US Relations in the Post-Cold War World. Retrieved May 25,

2012. From www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pm_0070.pdf+us.

+and+russia+post+cold+war&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESilmqQvnohHXi3j8dGm8G

UPLatZew9Cn1EZRlLvTf7_yg5QkVXeB9M2oi5g4j3_GcD3fjZB8WnmlV3JYPKSNssnPxSTX

6EK4rPXr0qL3Osow6vWNmKu8LaghTTez68SqZmQpnDx&sig=AHIEtbRqgXXuSRP30J4vg

VvqlvuyYLNl3Q

(2012, May 4). The Candidates on U.S.-Russia Relations. Retrieved May 25, 2012. From http://www.cfr.org/united-states/candidates-us-russia-relations/p27283

Wadhams, C., Cookman, C., Katulis, B. (2012, May 17). Elevating the Diplomatic Components of the Transition Strategy at the Chicago NATO Summit and Beyond. Retrieved May 25, 2012. From http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/afghanistan_transition.html

(2012). Retrieved May 25, 2012. From http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm#relations