Foreign Policy

The extent to which the international situation in January 1933 was conducive to Hitler achieving his foreign policy aims is debatable. There are a variety of factors which both assisted and hindered Hitler in achieving his aims. Some key aims of foreign policy were as follows, to destroy communism, to unite the German speaking population, to wipe out the Jews, to colonise the East and to revenge Germany’s defeat from the First World War. Some of the key factors which need to be looked at include the lack of agreement over how to deal with Germany, the internal weakness of Western countries, the weakness of the League of Nations, the defensive attitudes of certain countries and successor states.

Many countries, particularly France had a defensive mentality towards Germany, as a repeat of the First World War was certainly not wanted. British foreign policy under Baldwin was based upon public opinion. The horrors of the First World War meant that there was a “never again mentality” which can be shown by the oxford union debate in February 1933 which voted on the motion “that this House would not fight for King and country. There was also strong public opposition to rearmament and many thought rearmament would only antagonise Hitler.

Due to France’s worry of being invaded again the Maginot line defence fortification was constructed in the years 1929-1938. This defence fortification however was hardly a problem to Hitler at all. This was because of the fact that it stopped at the Belgian border, which meant that there was still corridor open if Germany wanted to invade both France and Belgium. Furthermore France was politically divided and had 11 governments between 1932 and 1935. This therefore meant that there was rival ideology of fascism and communism and so there were no clear policies as to what to do with the German problem. French foreign policy was inconsistent. This meant that France’s reactions to Hitler were delayed and weak and so therefore gave Hitler more encouragement. In contrast however France had the desire to develop links and ally with countries on Germany’s eastern borders such as Czechoslovakia and Romania. This therefore hindered Hitler as it gave France further defence and support.

There was a clear lack of agreement between the powerful countries as to what to do about Germany. France was very concerned at the possibility of a German threat and had wanted very harsh Versailles terms whereas Britain was preoccupied with its empire and favoured with a revision of peace. If the Treaty of Versailles was to be probably implemented it needed the support of the USA who failed to ratify the treaty in 1920. The United States then withdrew into isolationism. It can therefore be seen that the European powers were not able to enforce peace alone.

It can be seen that the League of Nations both assisted and hindered Hitler in achieving his foreign policy aims. As the USA and USSR were not members of the League of Nations until 1934 they were not able to be part of making decisions and so gave Hitler and Germany more freedom. Key evidence to show how the League of Nations was a failing peacekeeping organisation and thus assisting Hitler is from the Manchuria crisis in 1931. In this year Japan invaded Manchuria in China; the League of Nations took no effective action.

However, the League of Nations itself, although weak clearly limited Hitler’s opportunities. The League was an international body set up in order to preserve peace and prevent aggression. Furthermore it had the power to call for economic sanctions and military actions by member states. It can therefore be seen that the League of Nations hindered Hitler’s foreign policy, but only to a certain extent due to its weakness and lack of effective action.

When Hitler came to power in January 1933 he told the world he wanted to rid Germany of the problems of the Versailles Treaty in order to make her strong once more. To achieve this goal the country needed massive rearmament. Hitlers reply in February 1933 to a proposal from the Reich Ministry of Transport to build a reservoir shows the extent to which, in his view, the policy of rearmament was more important than anything else: ‘The next five years in Germany had to be devoted to rendering the German people again capable of bearing arms.

Every publicly sponsored measure to create employment had to be considered from the point of view of whether it was necessary with respect to rendering the German people again capable of bearing arms for military service.’ Since 1922 under the Rapallo pact Germany had been rearming in the USSR and hade economic links. This clearly shows how the international was conducive to Hitler’s aim of rearmament. Also In December 1932 there was a major conference over disarmament, where little happened.

By 1933 it can be seen that Germany had in fact secured a substantial revision of the Treaty of Versailles as Germany was now a member of the League of Nations, rearmament was no longer subject to scrutiny and reparations had been, in effect, cancelled (at Lausanne, 1932)

Various countries surrounding Germany contained German minorities and so this can be seen as an advantage to Hitler’s foreign policy. An important aim of Hitler’s was to unite all Germans, with many Germans in other countries it would be easier for Hitler to take over them. This is primarily because it is likely that the Germans in these countries, such as Czechoslovakia (300,000), Poland and Danzig (95%) would rather be part of Germany and would welcome German expansionism. In addition to this all of these countries were small and militarily and political weak which therefore means there would be little opposition. Also many Austrians were in favour of becoming part of Germany.

The German Domestic situation however was also important to Hitler’s Foreign policy aims. In 1933 Hitler had only just made Chancellor and there were only the Nazis in government other than Hitler. This means that it is likely Hitler would have little support in government. Furthermore Hitler was dependent upon elite support and Hindenburg as President could still remove Hitler.

In conclusion it can be seen that there is evidence both for against the international situation being conducive to Hitler’s Foreign policy aims. Whilst factors such as the USA being isolationist and the lack of agreement over how to deal with Germany were helpful to Hitler, others such as strong public opinion against war and Hitler being leader of a collation government show the problems that Hitler had to overcome.

Britain and France were sympathetic to Germany because of the harshness of The Treaty of Versailles for example the Rhineland was to be demilitarised and land such as Posen and West Prussia were taken from Germany. For these reasons they thought that this could be relaxed as shown by the naval agreement of 1935 and their ignoring the German army’s March into the Rhineland. It seemed reasonable that German speaking people should be united and Germany regain the land that they lost.

Therefore the Treaty of Versailles was an important reason because it was the root cause of everything that happened. It led to the German people getting angry and voting for the extremist party’s and Hitler coming to power. If the Treaty hadn’t been made then Britain and France would not have had anything to appease Germany over because there wouldn’t have been a need for them to regain the land they lost as it would have still been theirs.

The League of Nations had failed by 1938 when Hitler went into Austria. The reaction of the more powerful countries to events in Ethiopia and Manchuria had shown that countries such as Britain and France acted in their own self-interest when dealing with invasions by powerful countries when they attacked smaller countries. Thus the idea of collective security was seen as unworkable as countries were willing to use their own armies to protect smaller countries. Britain and France did not want to be involved in war.

This meant that the failure of the League of Nations was and important reason for the success of Hitler’s foreign policy because Hitler knew hat he could get away with anything without the league on his back. He already knew that the league had let Japan get away with invading Manchuria so Hitler believed that he could get away with what ever he wanted to do so he played with this and invaded countries and broke the Treaty of Versailles. The failure of the league meant that Hitler could invade all of ‘his’ countries and begin a war.

Hitler knew that Britain and France feared Communist Russia more than they feared Nazi Germany. This is shown by the friendly relationships between Britain and France and Germany during the first half of the 1930’s e.g. 1936 Olympics held in Britain. Therefore Britain and France were happy to see a strong Germany as a buffer against the USSR. This was an important reason for the success of Hitler’s foreign policy because France and Britain were scared of Russia as they were communists and they didn’t want them to invade them because Russia was too big and strong to defeat. Germany was strong and not communists and was in-between France, Britain and Russia and France and Britain didn’t want to upset Germany.

Appeasement showed Hitler that Britain and France were willing to allow him to do anything that he wanted to do. Hitler tried something out to see what would happen so he occupied the Rhineland and rearmed it. He sent troops into the Rhineland but Britain and France didn’t do anything because they thought this was Germany’s anyway so why not let them have it back.

When Britain and France let him off of that, he thought why not try something else so he the invaded Austria. Then once again Britain and France appeased Germany.

When Hitler saw that he was getting away with anything that he wanted to he took it another step forward until it led to war.

For this reason appeasement was a the most important reason for the success of Hitler’s foreign policy because it allowed Hitler to do what he wanted and get away with anything. If Britain and France would have not appeased Hitler then he probably wouldn’t have done the things he did that made his foreign policy a success.

If Britain and France would have done something then Hitler wouldn’t have gone as far as he did. Hitler took it as far as he could, got back all of the land that Germany had lost and it all eventually led to war.

Therefore Hitler knew that Britain and France were unlikely to act against him when he went into Austria, Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. He was rearming all the time that appeasement was occurring and so becoming stronger and more willing to risk war over Poland. Therefore appeasement was an important reason for the success of Hitler’s foreign policy.

A major part of Japan”s history from the late Nineteenth Century up to 1914 was military aggression. During this period there were many economic, social and political pressures that facilitated military expansion. Japanese militarism manifested on the Asian mainland in wars, aggression and military presence on foreign soil. Japan”s foreign policy was influenced by it”s government, education, religion and social structure. Economic pressures facilitating military expansion up to 1914. Japan was a new consumer economy that had changed from feudal economy in a very short time period of forty years.

This caused many problems and in the 1890″s Japan was in a severe economic depression and Japan was importing far more than they were exporting. Japan found it difficult to break into established overseas markets where countries had been trading for much longer than Japan. And so Japan was under pressure to expand it”s borders for raw materials and new overseas markets to sell to. Japan also wanted recognition from the western powers as a valuable market. During this time period there was also social pressures for Japan to expand.

The traditional Bushido, the fighting spirit of Japan enabled the military to expand, as opposed to if Japan were a more peaceful, pacifist country. A change in social structure meant that anyone could become part of the army from the old class of the Samurai warriors. In 1873 conscription was introduced mainly from peasants to serve three years, with the motto, “Enrich the country, strengthen the army”. Another social pressure to expand was increased urbanisation. By 1907, Tokyo and Osaka had waterworks and other public facilities, but before this and in many other cities they had no amenities like modern sewerage systems.

There was also pollution, a problem encountered by every country during industrialisation especially prominent due to the cramped conditions of Japanese cities. Political pressures also helped Japan to expand up to 1914. There were many changes to the political system that moved it towards a more centralised and democratic system. This meant that there was national power, which led to nationalism within the people of Japan. Despite this nationalism there was widespread discontent within Japan with new land tax on the peasants and low wages for workers in the cities.

The government saw expansion as a way to distract them from their problems and focus on wars abroad. Again Japan wanted international recognition as a power, the government saw examples of other strong countries expanding like Britain in India and France in Indo-China. Japan needed this recognition for bargaining power with the Western Powers. Japanese Militarism manifested on the Asian mainland in the Sino-Japanese War(1894-95). This war was over China”s and Japan”s interest in Korea, where both countries wanted to influence the government and prevent Western influence.

China had claimed control over Korea for many years, but as it was in such close proximity and was rich in the raw materials of coal and iron, Japan was interested. Japan forced Korea to trade and declare itself independent of China, while China continued to financially assist conservative officials in connection with the royal family. After troubles in Korea both countries sent in troops, but war was avoided by the signing of the Li-Ito Convention(1885). But in 1894 both China and Japan sent forces into Korea on the request of the King due to a rebellion.

After this Japan refused to remove troops from Korea and so war was declared on 1st of August 1894. Western countries were amazed at how easily Japan defeated China. China had a large and fairly modern navy, but it”s army lacked trained men and so they lost badly. China did not have the modern warfare methods of Japan which soon had total control over Korea. China agreed to pay a large indemnity to Japan and to give all the trading privileges to Japan. Japanese victory marked the emergence of Japan as a major world power and demonstrated the weakness of the Chinese Empire.

Later though the victory was dampened by the Triple Intervention of France, Russia and Germany, which forced Japan to return the Liaotung Peninsula to China. In the Russo-Japanese War(1904-05) Japanese forces also manifested on the Asian mainland. War began on the 8th of February 1904 when Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack on a Russian naval base in Port Aurthur. Russia had huge numbers of manpower but the war 8000km from Moscow, linked by only one railway and lacked support of the Russian people.

Meanwhile Japan was within easy distance of the battle and although they had few soldiers in comparison they were well led and supported. After a long battle at sea where both parties had suffered high casualties the war was ended by the American President, Roosevelt. Russia was forced to recognise Japan”s intense interests in Korea, transfer the lease of the Liaotung Peninsula to Japan and give Japan power over the railway between Port Arthur to Mukden. Japan was refused their request of indemnity from Russia but was not willing to fight another war for it.

The Russo-Japanese War forced Russia to abandon its expansionist policy in the Far East and it was the first time that an Asian power had defeated a European power. In 1910, Japan formally established a protectorate over Korea. The Japanese government assisted foreign policy and was influenced by it. The government was backed by the army, which was important as no government could continue without it. In return the government introduced conscription and provided monetary support. With a successful foreign policy, the government grew more confident in dealings with other countries.

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance(1902) was a definite confidence booster for the government. By it, Japan and Britain agreed that if two powers attacked either then the other must help. Education also assisted in and influenced by the success of Japan”s foreign policy. In Japan education became compulsory in 1872, and was centrally run. The Japanese education system glorified the Emperor, and the idea that the interests of the nation is more important than one”s own. Uniformity and nationalism were incorporated into the education system along with obedience to authority, all attributes associated with the armed forces.

In turn the education system grew more militaristic and praised Japan”s successes in foreign policy. Religion also helped foster a successful foreign policy. Shinto co-existed peacefully with other religions in Japan until the late 1870″s when the modernizing government suppressed other religions and adapted Shinto teachings for government propaganda in support of the military. The government stressed that Shinto was the best religion as it wasn”t a foreign religion, like Buddhism and Christianity and so was better for the Japanese. Shinto taught loyalty, respect and obedience to the Emperor.

And so the Emperor”s decisions in relation to foreign policy was not questioned. Religion was successfully influenced by Japan”s foreign policy as it became even more obedient to the Emperor and in the land that Japan acquired through their foreign policy, Shinto was spread. Japan”s social structure also assisted foreign policy. Japan”s social structure was organised in such a way that they were not to question authority, and so the armed forces did not have to look for approval of their foreign policy. In Japan it was considered a privilege, not a duty, to fight for one”s country.

The social structure was influenced in the way it looked up to the military and as Japan became a world power with annexes in Korea and Taiwan, it boosted confidence and nationalism within all classes of society. Japan was pressured in economic, social and political areas to expand it”s borders. Japan”s military manifested on the Asian mainland during the Sino-Japanese War(1894-95) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05). Nationalism and Militarism filtrated into every aspect of Japanese life, including government, education, religion and social structure.

Question 1: ‘Joseph Stalin’s foreign policy during and after the Second World War was an unmitigated failure. ‘ Do you agree with this statement? Joseph Stalin, the General Secretary of the USSR, who had signed two agreements during and after the Second World War. The two agreements were signed under Yalta Conference and Potsdam Conference in February 1945 and 17 July – 2 August 1945 respectively. These two agreements were both influenced USSR future. In the following essay, it proves whether Joseph Stalin’s foreign policy during and after the Second World War was an unmitigated failure.

First of all, the definition of ‘foreign policy’ is the interaction between countries that they are going to achieve something and both have benefit with it. On the other hand, according to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary, the terms, ‘unmitigated’ and ‘failure’ mean ‘”complete”, usually when describing something bad’ and ‘not successful, lack of success in doing or achieving something’ respectively. In my opinion, I would define ‘unmitigated failure’ as no achievement and totally fail to obtain the goal, as well as making a bad situation to itself.

At the end of the Second World War (February 1945), there was a Yalta Conference held in the Crimea. The purpose of this Conference was discussing Germany’s post-war reorganization. The Big Three were attended, including Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. The agreement was signed to divide Germany into zone, under control by United State, USSR and British, and later France, as well as her capital, Berlin. Notwithstanding, Berlin was inside the control region of USSR; this situation implicated the potential crisis later.

As Berlin located inside Eastern Germany, where under USSR’s control, it allowed the US, Britain and Frances to enter the USSR’s control area. It implies that, although the USSR had spread its power to the Eastern Germany, it did not mean that USSR would have a total authority of it. Therefore, it could regard as one of the failure of Joseph Stalin’s foreign policy. In addition, the free election holds in the Baltic States, Poland, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe Since the agreement divided the Eastern part of Germany to USSR, the power of USSR spread to the Eastern Europe.

However, Stalin was not satisfied with it, “Stalin’s postwar goals were security for himself, his regime, his country, and his ideology, in precisely that order. ” (John 1972 p. 11) We can notice that Stalin’s was a very aggressive person, never stopped achieving the greater goal. Although he had already occupied the Eastern Germany, that is not enough for him. He would rather do more to protect and expand USSR, instead of being satisfied. “No internal challenges could ever again endanger his personal rule… o external threats would ever again place his country at risk… the international communist movement, enormously feared — but also widely worshipped” (John 1972 p. 11) Moreover, Stalin was very careful about the internal challenges and external threats. Apart from deciding to eliminate the dangers and territories towards his country, Stalin’s communism was also feared by other, and being widely worshipped. Nonetheless, USSR was not totally benefited on it; the agreement caused USSR fell into dilemma later.

As the United State and British were pursued capitalism, it could be a worse situation to USSR. This extreme contrast between countries gave rise to their bad attitude toward one another. According to Lenin, “The most important one was the belief, which went back to Lenin, that capitalists would never be able to cooperate with one another for very long” (John 1972 p. 12) Lenin belief is true, since after the Second World War, USSR and US no longer had common enemy, the tension and mistrust between these two countries was deteriorated.

After the Second World War, the Potsdam Conference held in Potsdam, Germany. This conference also attended by the big three, the New US president, Harry Truman did not inform Stalin that US had made and successfully tested the atomic bombs which regarded as powerful new weapon at that time. It lends to the tension and conflicts arose. The resentful relationship between USSR and USA break out in this conference. Although the foreign policy of Joseph Stalin caused USSR to fall into difficulty, there were some achievements.

Obviously, no policy could be defined as unmitigated failure, every policy at least have its own achievement. Therefore, I disagree with this statement. Reference: · John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War, p. 11,12 · Stalin’s Mistake, http://www. fsmitha. com/mistakes/victory-stalin. htm surf on 30/10/2012 · Yalta Conference foreshadows the Cold War, http://www. history. com/this-day-in-history/yalta-conference-foreshadows-the-cold-war surf on 30/10/2012

When Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979 she had little interest in foreign policy but focussing mainly on economic and domestic policy. However, it was an area where she left a huge impact on.

One of Thatcher’s aims was to increase the defence for Britain as she believed the USSR was a massive threat militarily. This meant improving relations with the USA. Her views on Communism helped with this as her and Ronald Reagan both shared the same ideas. She also believed NATO was vital to British and European defence and so to strengthen this relationship was important.

She supported NATO’s decision to deploy US nuclear cruise and Pershing missiles in Western Europe and permitted the US to station more than 160 cruise missiles at RAF Greenham Common, even though she knew it would trigger mass protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Relations improved with the US when Thatcher permitted US F-111s to use Royal Air Force bases for the bombing of Libya in retaliation for their apparent bombing of a Berlin nightclub; this decision wasn’t very popular with the British citizens.

Another one of Margaret Thatcher’s aims was to reassert Britain’s position as a major power. Many people will say she achieved this because of the Falklands War. In April 1982, Argentina ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia which were under British control at the time. She successfully retook the islands back by setting up a War Cabinet and dispatching a naval task force against them which in June they surrendered.

Even though 255 British soldiers died and the attack on an Argentinian cruiser which sunk and killed everyone on board, people were far more distracted by the victory which took place. This helped her win the 1983 elections. However, she was strongly criticised as to why she didn’t pay attention to the Falklands’ defence that led to the war, in which she could have stopped happening. This in turn would have saved the lives of the British soldiers and the people on the Argentinian cruiser.

Some people may disagree that Thatcher achieved the aim to raise Britain’s status entirely because of the Grenada incident. On October 1983, the USA attacked Grenada; a member of the Commonwealth, without consulting Britain to take-over a Marxist organisation. This was an embarrassment for Thatcher because it showed her weakness to defend countries which were once members of the Commonwealth who felt they still needed to be defended.

Thatcher also wanted to see the defeat of Communism, which some people argue was achieved and that her role played an important part. She was able to build a working relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev who came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985. This placed Britain in a good position to be the peace-maker between the US and the Soviet Union. They ended up meeting a couple of times which led to the agreement to scrap all intermediate-range missiles from Europe, the elimination of tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons and conventional forces. After that many countries in Eastern Europe experienced their own revolution which led to domestic changes and an end to the Soviet domination over them. This was a victory for Britain and all the other NATO countries.

Although this aim was achieved, Thatcher feared that because many changes were happening across Eastern Europe, Germany would start to reunify and become strong again which would affect the European balance of power and Thatcher didn’t like this.

After discussing the aims of Margaret Thatcher in Foreign Policy, I believe on the whole she achieved them. She managed to reassert Britain’s position as a superpower because of the Falklands war. It was a massive turning point for Thatcher and a defining moment in her premiership which helped her stay in power by winning the 1983 election. Even though many people died during the Falkland’s War, she was considered a highly talented and committed war leader by many people.

She also helped defeat Communism by building a relationship with the Soviet leader and making discussions between the US and the Soviet Union easier. This led to nuclear disarmament which helped with Britain’s fear of Russia attacking them.

Foreign aid is defined as voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another country, at times as leverage to cohorts the receiving country do what the donor country wants. But it may be given as a signal of diplomatic approval, or to strengthen a military ally, to reward a government for behavior desired by the country giving the aid, to extend the donor’s cultural influence, or to gain political strength here at home as abroad. According to the USAID website, foreign aid is given through eight different types of monetary assistance.

These eight different forms of assistance are agriculture, democracy and governance, economic growth and trade, environment, education and training, global health, global partnerships, and humanitarian assistance. From 1980 to 2008, U. S. total foreign assistance has increased from 9. 69 billion to just over 49 billion in 2008. From the 49 billion spent in 2008 alone, close to 15. 5 billion was spent on military aid while the rest was divided between economic assistance in fields such as agriculture, international development, and other economic growth and trade programs.

The largest recipients of the two foreign aid subdivisions, military and economic aid, went respectively to the regions of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. The country in the Middle East with the highest recipient of aid was Afghanistan, with close to 9 of the 49 billion dollars of aid in the 2008 year alone (USAID, 2013. ) As we can see a lot of our tax payer’s money goes abroad to countries many American cannot find on a world map, but we need to help these countries for the safety of our people, at least in the eyes of every politicians in office.

American liberals, as described by Bob Burnett of the Huffington Post, fall between two primary types of camps that determine their views of U. S. Foreign Aid. Idealists and realist camps, focus on the need for international humanitarian aid which is similar to our own domestic welfare on a national level (Burnett, 2006. ) They tend to favor foreign aid as a means to educate and develop relationships through cooperation and financial funding. Other far left liberal groups discourage military spending while encouraging to increase social programs internationally.

They believe that poverty stricken countries in need of assistance otherwise known as “Third World” countries are indebted to other countries which lead to their current status as reported on the Green Party Platform (GPP, 2000. ) As a primary focus to foreign aid and success to developing nations is the assistance to increase food production, availability to clean drinking water, reduction of infant mortality, and improvements toward health by means of the green revolution.

Lastly, they utilize terms of humanitarian aid as to be consistent with their egalitarian values. In recent discussion to reform the current foreign aid policy, Democratic representative Howard Berman introduces a reform proposal “Global Partnership Act of 2012” to replace the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. This policy would restore budget functions towards the USAID and develop new funding mechanisms focused on innovation, microenterprise development, and rapid humanitarian response, and reduce violence against women (Mungcal, 2012. In addition, this policy would focus on reduction of global poverty, accelerated economic growth, agricultural innovation, advancement in health, combating diseases, global education strategy, gender equality, assistance to persons that have been affected by conflict or disaster, and monitoring/investing towards sustaining upward success and control of financing through government regulations (HR, 2012. )

Thus, they create a more specific rational belief to solve foreign issues utilizing our government system to regulate. When observing the implementers of the USAID they have nearly 2,000 experienced employees (USAID, 2013. Other proposals by liberals represented by the Green Party express international solidarity maintaining peace and security through a global green deal. This particular deal will concentrate finances on universal education, food, sanitation and purified water, health care, and family services for every person on Earth. This particular proposal “Fund Global Basic Human Needs” would gain funding by retiring the military from our economy and closing all overseas military bases In addition, eliminate the CIA, NSA, and all other covert Warfare in order to reallocate funding towards aid.

Lastly, this platform would eliminate debt from poverty stricken countries thus creating emphasizing their egalitarian beliefs (GPP, 2000. ) Another foreign aid announced by President Barack Obama is the Global Health Initiative that would continue to develop from the pre-existing program by President Bush, President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief. This continued improving program will expand to other countries instead of only Africa, it would encourage prevention, care, and treatment while strengthening government partnership and invest in research internationally to maximize outcomes (UNAIDS, 2009. In addition, they seek to reduce higher statistics of disease contraction and mortality of women and children while strengthening global health partnerships. Based upon the ideological spectrum of liberal beliefs, through their core value of rationalism they exhibit faith in human reason to solve complex problems that cause poverty in third world countries. By creating regulations, education about health and finances, and encouraging progress towards mutual goals through the Global Partnership Act of 2012, liberals believe that underprivileged countries will progressively develop towards sustainability based upon human rationale.

As an egalitarian belief, liberals from the Green Party believe and promote human equality by their party platform of universal health care for every person on the planet which indicates equal treatment by means of education, health, and services. They promote internationalism by means of equal treatments towards other countries and foreign aid reform of the PEPFAR towards all countries instead of the countries within the African continent. Moreover, liberals seek change as soon as possible which led to the speedy approval of PEPFAR and Africa’s request for assistance in regards to immediate medical attention and assistance.

Therefore, the liberals utilize the government as a strong feature to decide and guide towards our faith in solving socioeconomic problems internationally while attempting to cultivate foreign governments with their ideology. Lastly, they value their belief of individual liberties and encourage the development of foreign countries so that their citizens will be treated fairly and just by their government. When approaching foreign aid as a contemporary American conservative, they utilize the term foreign policy as opposed to aid as a reference of government action rather than a community decision.

They seem to favor foreign policy by means of military and health care; however, the primary goal is to develop relationships with foreign countries to prevent conflicts. Although they discuss creating trade agreements and forming partnerships, they seem to be strategizing in terms of security and protection for America. In regards to funding, conservatives don’t seem to favor the idea of increasing tax spending towards foreign aid and seek to reform due to their subjective views on failed results.

Therefore, they view investment towards a flawed foreign policy will lead to more spending in military forces to protect America from unstable countries. Moreover, I feel that conservatives have a strong belief in nationalism and would want to share this system by encouraging other undeveloped countries to conform to our system. As a conservative perspective towards foreign aid, our government allocates tax payers funding towards the Millennium Challenge Corporation or MCC which would utilize a procedural form of selecting certain countries by means of performance while being evaluated by a board and executed by 300 employees (MCC, 2013. The criteria would be based upon whether or not they can compete with other countries in regards to Gross National Income of low or middle class sustaining, improving their quality and performance as a country, or graduating with a year If there are no signs of improvement or potential, they would not be eligible for the next year and be left to their own elements. The form of criteria emphasizes a value of elitism on the competitive national level. Basically, if a certain country is not deemed successful due to lack of intellect, strength of its citizens, or ability to overcome poverty then we decline assistance.

In another perspective, we can view our system of criteria and success based on the survival of the fittest which is a value of inequality. In addition, the goals of the MCC are to leave the responsibility of the foreign government to facilitate their own success towards growth in health and agriculture, create partnerships, and property rights (MCC 2013. ) We basically leave their government in the faith of the invisible hand to guide their success rather than micro managing their success by means of government.

Lastly we encourage property and individual right through the investment policy to reduce poverty. As discussed by James Roberts a researcher for International Trade and Economics, “MCC’s selectivity and associated seal of approval creates powerful incentives for developing countries to uphold democratic and free-market principles, invest responsibly in their citizens, and transition their economies from developing to emerging markets” (Roberts, 2013. ) He encourages a core value of faith in non-human institutions by means of a free market rather than government controlled.

In addition, the MCC encourages national accountability towards developing democratic reform and trade policies thus validating their values within nationalism. In a recent proposed foreign aid budget, Josh Riggin reports, “The long-term budget announced on Tuesday by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan would cut the budget for international affairs and foreign assistance by 29 percent in 2012 and 44 percent by 2016 while increasing the defense budget by 14 percent over the same timeframe” (Rogin, 2011. Basically, he would be increasing the current spending bill on defense of 22 billion to 583 billion for national defense and security while decreasing national affairs from 37 billion to 22 billion.

This validates the characteristic of the need to increase spending on defense or authority and stability with conservatives. Moreover, the decrease in foreign aid would be left at the hands of faith in non-human institutions. In a report by U. S. World News, Evan Moore and Patrick Christy claim “Aid is hard power. It is a weapon the United States uses to strengthen allies [and partners] and, thus, ourselves. (Moore & Christy, 2013. ) In this statement, they value a sense of authority, stability, and order in regards to security with military. However, due to sequestration to cut foreign aid, conservatives believe that it will avoid assistance towards promoting national security and create instability in weak states as well as on a global level. Basically, foreign aid directed towards developing a country will hinder strategic investment with allies in military which is the primary goal. As a statement towards nationalism, Gary Connor publisher of Palestine.

Herald-Press, he claims that the U. S spends billions of tax payers’ money every year on foreign aid while we continue to be underfunded on a national level primarily with disaster relief, education, and border security (Connor, 2013. ) His conservative belief opposes internationalism while focusing on America as the priority versus developing countries that may not be contributing to our society. In addition, he emphasizes a sense of elitism in the aspect of the funding that was gained by tax payers should be used towards the tax payers despite the harsh reality underdeveloped countries.

As a primary characteristic of a conservative, their primary worries in regards to the foreign aid policy are the unintended consequences. As reported by Thomas Eddlem contributor to The New American publication, “US foreign aid programs often funded autocratic regimes that have committed human rights abuses and stand against democratic principles” (Eddlem, 2013. ) In other words, American funding towards foreign aid has become the financing for their government to oppress and control opposing voices. Another report claims American aid to Egypt purchases in the last 30 years towards their regime that performs torture and brutality.

The challenge to foreign aid is whether or not we have implemented proper authorities to ensure foreign aid given by America’s tax payers are being utilized effectively. Due to the conservatives lack of confidence in the government’s ability to create progressive results using the tax payers money, conservatives state that “Billions of American dollars from faith-based and other charitable, academic, and humanitarian groups go to the needy overseas every year and have far better results than government ODA” (Roberts, 2013. Although conservatives may seem reluctant to push towards foreign aid, their support through religious charity groups emphasizes a faith in non-human institutions. Contemporary American moderates would approach foreign aid in a collaborative value between conservatives and liberals; however, they would primarily compromise their beliefs to coincide with the current status quo.

They would probably continue keep a balance of spending to aid foreign countries by means of finances and health assistance, but to primarily remain conscious as to prevent from leaning towards focus on the government for all assistance and seeking private donations as well. In addition, they would probably continue the traditional USAID form of foreign aid and balance with the new updated approach of the MCC or to combine both of these programs.

In recent alternative propositions by the Foreign Service Despatches and Periodic Reports on U. S. Foreign Policy by Dobransky, he considers multiple alternatives in the views of moderates. The first policy would be to maintain U. S. foreign aid by continuing to utilize USAID and the recent version MCC. In the perspective of Americans, both forms of aid have been approved and criticized openly by multiple parties; however, they are both still being utilized and approved by congress as the usual form of application (Dobransky, 2011. The second alternative would be to merge both programs of the USAID and MCC which would primarily cause shared mass information to the public and be able to whittle down flaws and target areas of success to increase efficacy. Moreover, there would be one organization as opposed to two leading groups that oppose each other’s’ views despite a common goal. A proposition brought on by the Green Party that would encourage a global deal to fund towards education, food, and other basic needs to every human on this planet by means of American tax payers.

Sounds like a truly selfless proposal; however, the majority of Americans would not want to place all resources and hard earned money to the rest of the world. This would probably exhaust America’s budget and would be impossible to ensure that every single person is receiving the same exact treatment. In addition, America would not want to sacrifice closing overseas military bases which would place our country in a higher and much vulnerable state due to weak security. When evaluating the MCC policy, they emphasize a rich value in elitism by means of leaving these countries to their own device.

If we are investing in these particular countries by means of our tax payer’s money, we would want to see positive results by means of guidance and American political perspective to decrease poverty and social ills rather than finance countries then leave them to figure out how to succeed. In addition, with the amount billions of dollars spent to aid other countries we can afford to increase representatives of the limited 300 employees of MCC in order to properly work side by side with invested countries.

Politicians in America use Foreign Aid as a weapon to achieve what they want from other countries, but they do not really see the real problems that this help causes in poor countries, or at least they act as they do not see it. For example Foreign Aid causes major corruption and even more poverty. The governments in poor countries do not really care about the people and they are not design like the government in the United States. If we follow the history of Foreign Aid, we can see that every time we help a country, we always end up fighting that country at one point or another.

Foreign Aid should be limited and the US should hold the countries that received aid accountable for how they use it. Millions of dollars are lost in fraudulent contracts and misuse by the receiving governments, we do not have a saying in how these governments can use our hard earn money. For the US government to continue having the approval of the people in foreign aid help, it needs to fix the requirements for who qualifies to receive foreign aid, and also when to use foreign aid as a tool for foreign policy.