U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post Cold War era How well did U.S. foreign policy decisions meet the challenges of the post–Cold War era?

Do Now: The end of the Cold War created an opportunity for the United States to chart a new course in foreign affairs. Option 1 The United States has fixed world problems long enough. It should severely cut back its foreign commitments and use the savings to make positive changes at home. The rest of the world can take care of itself. Option 2 The United States is now the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. It should use its power and wealth to make positive changes in the world—to stop wars, eliminate disease, and defeat corrupt or harsh governments. If the United States does not promote its ideals and stop evil, who will? Option 3 The United States should take this opportunity to strengthen international organizations like the United Nations. International cooperation is the key to solving global issues. Option 4 The United States should selectively use its power only when it wants to promote its own economic and security interests. It should be a global player but should only look out for itself.

Background Today you will evaluate foreign policy decisions made during the post–Cold War era. You will debate several controversial and difficult foreign policy questions. For example, how should the United States respond to dictators like Saddam Hussein? Should the United States always step in to stop genocide? Only informed and active citizens can help answer these difficult questions.

Main Idea The end of the Cold War brought hopes for a new era of peace and cooperation in the world. Nevertheless, the United States faced many challenges in the post–Cold War era.

Decision Making Stations How should the United States deal with new relationships in the post Cold-War era? How should the United States deal with dictators? How should the United States deal with ethnic cleansing and genocide? How should the United States deal with human suffering caused by natural disasters? How should the United States deal with global trade? How should the United States deal with terrorism? You are now a foreign policy advisor that will assess and debate U.S. foreign policy decisions made during the post–Cold War era. As you go to each station, evaluate the following questions.

Debate 1: dealing with New relationships after the cold war How should the United States deal with new relationships after the Cold War? A. Encourage strong relationships with Soviet republics in an effort to get them to put their nuclear stockpiles back into the Soviet Union’s control. B. Provide foreign aid and assistance to those Soviet republics that may now attempt to establish a democratic government. C. Allow nations that used to be a part of the Warsaw Pact to join NATO to promote a more unified world order and create closer ties to one another. D. Encourage the formation of the European Union to help Europe’s economy, laws, and foreign policies. Additionally, help promote the idea of a one continent currency to make it easier for European countries to buy goods from one another.

Forging New Relations After the Cold War The United States tried to persuade the now-independent republics of the former Soviet Union to place their nuclear weapons under Russian control. The U.S was motivated by fear that the weapons might fall into the wrong hands and by a desire to promote peace and democracy. The results were mixed. Nuclear weapons were placed in the hands of the Russians, but Russia suffered from continuing political corruption and economic problems.

Forging New Relations After the Cold War Building new ties in Europe As a member of NATO, the United States supported the decision to enlarge NATO membership to include former Warsaw Pact nations. These nations were motivated to join NATO in order to develop closer ties to Western Europe and the United States.

Debate 2: Dealing with Dictators How should the United States deal with dictators? A. Identify the worst dictators around the world. Then use economic and diplomatic pressure and, if necessary, the military to force a change toward democracy. B. Use the military to remove all dictators, but only when they pose a threat to the U.S. economy or security. C. Let a dictator’s own people or the people of nearby countries handle it when necessary. D. Support UN efforts to place pressure on dictators who mistreat their people. Only send U.S. troops under the leadership or approval of the United Nations.

Confronting Dictators Halting Iraqi aggression An international coalition of nations, including the United States, took part in air strikes and a ground war to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait. This became known as the Persian Gulf War. The United States was motivated by a desire to maintain the flow of oil from the region, to reduce the power of the Iraqi military, and to prevent future aggression in the region. Results were mostly positive for the United States and the other nations.

Debate 3: Dealing with Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide How should the United States deal with ethnic cleansing and genocide? A. Let someone else deal with it. Ethnic cleansing or genocide happening outside the United States is not an American problem. B. Work with the United Nations to place pressure on the perpetrators. Send troops when necessary, but only under UN leadership or approval. C. Authorize a military action any time genocide or ethnic cleansing can be identified. It should never be allowed again, and the United States is powerful enough to stop it. D. Only get involved in trying to stop ethnic cleansing or genocide if it has a negative affect on the U.S. economy or security. Otherwise, do not get involved.

Responding to Ethnic Conflict and Genocide Ending ethnic Cleansing in Yugoslavia The United States, along with NATO forces, intervened militarily to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Ethnic cleansing is the forced removal and murder of ethnic groups. The United States was motivated by a desire to stop human-rights abuses. Ignoring Genocide in Rwanda The United States did not intervene to stop ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. It was motivated by a concern that it would fail to solve the problem, as it had in an earlier intervention in Somalia, another African nation. The results were horrific: More than 800,000 people died in approximately three months.

Debate 4: Dealing with Human Suffering How should the United States deal with human suffering caused by great catastrophes such as floods, famines, hurricanes, or disease? A. Let other nations, closer to the problem, deal with it. If we constantly bail people out, how can we expect other countries to ever do their part? The United States cannot solve the whole world’s problems. B. Work with the United Nations to fix these problems. U.S. actions should only be in collaboration with the United Nations. That will encourage international solutions to international problems. C. Only supply help to nations or people who are allied with the United States. Why help our enemies? D. Work on our own and with others to eliminate all human suffering. People living in a wealthy country like the United States can afford to do at least this much.

Trying to Ease Human Suffering Sending Relief aid to Somalia The United Nations organized a relief effort, made up mostly of U.S. soldiers, to help end a famine and restore order in Somalia. Motives were at first humanitarian and then moved toward nation building. Countering Famine in north Korea The United States, as part of the World Food Program, debated but then sent food shipments to North Korea to end a famine there. U.S. motives were complicated by the fact that North Korea is communist, is a military threat, and was working to build nuclear weapons. In the end, U.S. motivation was mainly humanitarian. Dealing with aids in Africa After a delay, the United States authorized spending $15 billion to help combat the AIDS crisis in Africa. The United States was motivated by a desire to save lives. Millions of people were dying each year, and 24 million were infected with the HIV virus. Some criticized the United States for doing too little, too late.

Debate 5: Dealing with Terrorism How should the United States deal with terrorism? A. Concentrate most of the efforts on protecting U.S. territory by increasing security at home. Invest heavily in the Department of Homeland Security and increase attention to protecting our borders and finding terrorist cells operating in the United States. B. Join an international effort coordinated and led by the United Nations. Let the United Nations take the lead in rooting out and defeating terrorists all over the world. The United States should be a big player on an international team but should not try to shoulder most of the responsibility itself. C. Do more to reduce the root causes of terrorism. Poverty, injustice, and intolerance contribute to the growth of terrorism. The United States should invest heavily in humanitarian relief in poorer nations and work to promote freedom in nations where freedom is in short supply. D. Send U.S. forces to defeat terrorists wherever they appear in the world. The best way to defeat terrorists is with power and might. The United States should invest most efforts in building up the American military and intelligence operations. Find terrorists in their own countries and defeat them there, long before they reach American soil.

How did U.S. foreign policy change in the post–Cold War era? Processing How did U.S. foreign policy change in the post–Cold War era? How well did U.S. foreign policy meet the challenges of the post–Cold War era? What are the main lessons that can be learned from the foreign policy actions you studied in this activity? How well did U.S. foreign policy in the post–Cold War era live up to America’s founding ideals?