The diverse anticipations on the ability of the foreign policy to shape the nation’s governmental status has long been an issue by which diplomats and democrats has characterized as a move towards connection and collaboration with other adjacent states as well as with the pride on obtaining “dominance” if taken in a larger perspective. Consequently, during the strike of the First World War, America has sacrificed more than just on the basis of the financial aspect but as well on the diplomatic power which was supposedly an armor to them as well as with the preservation of the American heritage.
In the most inevitable sense of the scenario, during the years 1890-1918, American Foreign Policy appears to have taken a sharp unilateral turn through the construction of international orders with rule-based agreements, alliance partnerships and apparently on the grounds of unilateralism. In such delight, the American government has emerged into several treaties which paid high regard on being a cornerstone towards building an arms-control movement which, on a certain perspective may be taken as the most valuable and important step in achieving the so-called “dominative” structure in an immense scale of the scenario.
Moreover, the characterization of allies and on large-scale public opinion has served as the country’s vanguard on the belief of achieving the masses’ sympathy on any move or decision made by the government since that economical and societal risk was at stake. Analysis The history of American Foreign Policy history has been stressed to be one of the major reasons why the economy of the country has been improving and its ability towards achieving success in the arena of globalization has been mounting on towering heights.
Conceivably, the strike of World War I triggered many political analyst and business tycoons to go hand in hand with the verity of collaborating with other countries in the scheme of economic, political and societal progress so as to contain the threat which has been brought upon by the war. Several analysts have advised the American government that the war shall not be able to be contained without the help of allies not only on the basis of man power in the military battle field but on the financial basis as well.
It may be far from the reality which took place in Russian countries but due to the emergent massive outbreak, America had to ask for help from other vicinities—which on the brighter side has served the country right and has achieved their goal on pursuing their aim of winning the confrontation and having European treaties the answer towards saving the critically unstable economy and military forces of the country (Benjamin & Edinger, 1993). Conclusions and further remarks In a larger perspective, the “idea” of shaping the foreign policy in the US may be considered as that which is aimed on a socio-economic stability perspective.
Unlike the other large countries—wherein the prize revolves on ‘pride’ and dominance’—America has basically reached the fundamental peak of not minding the “reputational” stardom but rather on “saving” the country against the wrath given by the flaws of the war. Perhaps the war was already on the sagacity of “global dominance” but it may be taken to assumption that the US has nevertheless tried the best of their diplomatic skills to gain the sympathy of the “flourishing countries” just to have their feet on the ground.
Thus in the contemporary society may be realized on how America has taken a big leap forward into having the “feat of triumph” for being the “heart of the economy” and the largest country, per se. Even though the 1890-1918 eras made them ask for help and alliance to other countries, it is evident that in the recent times the country has gathered enough strength to pull back what they have lost and prove the worth
Benjamin, R. W., & Edinger, L. J. (1993). Conditions for Military Control over Foreign Policy Decisions in Major States: A Historical Exploration The American Historical Review, 15(1), 5-31.