英語(yǔ)本科畢業(yè)論文-冷戰(zhàn)后的美國(guó)對(duì)外戰(zhàn)略

1、<p><b>　　本科畢業(yè)論文</b></p><p>　　冷戰(zhàn)后的美國(guó)對(duì)外戰(zhàn)略</p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名： </p><p>　　學(xué)生學(xué)號(hào)： 200310206011 </p><p>　　院（系）： 外 國(guó) 語(yǔ) 學(xué) 院 </p><p>　

2、　年級(jí)專業(yè)： 2003級(jí)英語(yǔ)本科3班 </p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師： </p><p><b>　　二〇〇七年五月</b></p><p>　　The US Foreign Strategies</p><p>　　in the Post-Cold War Era</p><p>&

3、lt;b>　　Li Yunhe</b></p><p>　　Under the Supervision of</p><p><b>　　Yuan Bin</b></p><p>　　School of Foreign Languages and Cultures</p><p>　　Panzhihua

4、 University</p><p><b>　　May 2007</b></p><p><b>　　Content</b></p><p>　　Abstract……..……………………………………...…………..………I</p><p>　　Key Words…………………………………………

5、………………………………...I</p><p>　　摘要……..........…………...………………………..…................................................Ⅱ</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞………......................................................................

6、.................................Ⅱ</p><p>　　Introduction………........................................................................................................1</p><p>　?、? Brief Introductio

7、n of US Foreign Strategies in History………...............................2</p><p>　　Ⅱ. Different Foreign Strategies in the Post-Cold War Era…………………………....3</p><p>　　Foreign Strategy of Bush Govern

8、ment………………………………………...3</p><p>　　Foreign Strategy of Clinton Government……………………………………...5</p><p>　　Foreign Strategy of George W. Bush Government……………………………7 </p><p>　?、? Future Tren

9、ds of US Foreign Strategies…………………………………….........10</p><p>　　Conclusion ……………………………………………….…………………………..12</p><p>　　Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………..13</p><p>　　Notes……………

10、…………………………………………………………………….14</p><p>　　Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….15</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the transfor

11、mation of the East European socialist states, the reunification of Germany, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Cold War ended, and the United States found itself at another watershed. However, it is more dif

12、ficult to define and determine the interests, objectives, and means of American foreign strategy. </p><p>　　The Bush government advocated a foreign strategy of “New World Order”. The concept of “New World Or

13、der” includes the emphasis of American leadership in world affairs and the creation of a new “American century”. However, it was criticized for being ambiguous and impractical. Clinton paid more attention to internal aff

14、airs and promoted a foreign strategy of “Engagement and Enlargement”, which accelerated its economic development and enhanced its leadership. In the year of 2000, George W. Bush won</p><p>　　In the future, A

15、merica has to adjust its foreign strategies to cooperate with others and depend more on its soft powers to maintain its national interests,.</p><p><b>　　Key Words</b></p><p>　　US; fo

16、reign strategy; post-cold war era; cooperation </p><p><b>　　摘　要</b></p><p>　　20世紀(jì)80年代末90年代初，伴隨著東歐巨變、兩德統(tǒng)一和蘇聯(lián)解體，冷戰(zhàn)宣告結(jié)束。美國(guó)也面臨著全新的國(guó)際形勢(shì)。但是，要重新尋找確定美國(guó)的國(guó)家利益、戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)及其實(shí)現(xiàn)的途徑卻變得更加困難。 </p>&

17、lt;p>　　老布什上臺(tái)后，指定了“新世界秩序”的對(duì)外戰(zhàn)略政策，強(qiáng)調(diào)要確保美國(guó)在世界事務(wù)中的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)地位以實(shí)現(xiàn)“美國(guó)世紀(jì)”，但因其模糊性和不具操作性而遭到廣泛批評(píng)。因此，克林頓得以在四年后的選舉中勝出?？肆诸D政府推行“參與和擴(kuò)展”的對(duì)外戰(zhàn)略，振興了美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)，增強(qiáng)了美國(guó)對(duì)世界的影響力和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力。2000年小布什上臺(tái)后，大力推行單邊主義政策。但近年來(lái)卻遇到了不少麻煩。在其他國(guó)家迅速崛起的同時(shí)，美國(guó)卻深陷阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)和伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的泥潭，糾纏于朝

18、鮮和伊朗的核問題而不得脫身。毫無(wú)疑問，美國(guó)在后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代面臨著更多的問題。</p><p>　　因而，美國(guó)今后必須調(diào)整其外交戰(zhàn)略，與其他國(guó)家進(jìn)行合作，并更多地依靠軟力量來(lái)維護(hù)其國(guó)家利益。</p><p><b>　　關(guān)鍵詞</b></p><p>　　美國(guó)；外交戰(zhàn)略；后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代；合作</p><p>　　Introduct

19、ion</p><p>　　When Cold War ended, the world became more complex and less predictable, and the domestic ambivalence and confusion over U.S. involvement in world affairs heighten pressures of immediate restruc

20、turing of foreign strategy. Naturally, it was predicted by many that the evolving environment of the post-Cold War world required the United States to refashion its foreign strategy and the agencies that made it. </p&

21、gt;<p>　　Many scholars thought America was the winner and it was the right time to create an “American Century”. Therefore, the first Bush government advocated a foreign strategy of “New World Order”. However, it

22、was more difficult to define and determine the interests, objectives, and means of American foreign strategy in fact. As the strategy was too oblivious, it was soon replaced by the strategy of “Engagement and Enlargement

23、” of Clinton government which put more emphasis on internal affairs, but at </p><p>　　At the same time, other powers are developing quickly. European countries are on the road of unity and their economic pow

24、er is growing more influential. Japan is trying to play a more active role in world political and economic stage. China and India are booming in economic field. Russia is reawaking. Moreover, terrorism and nuclear proble

25、ms are also haunting the world. </p><p>　　However, if America withdraws from Iraq now, it may fail thoroughly in the anti-terrorism war and encounters fiercer opposition from Islamic world. Therefore, in ord

26、er to hold its national interests, America has to seek more cooperation and assistance from international world. Besides, America will shift their attention to prevent other powers from rising, and depend more on “soft p

27、ower” to maintain its dream of “second to none”.</p><p>　　I. Brief Introduction of US Foreign Strategies in History</p><p>　　The new land was found by Christopher Columbus in 1492. Over the foll

28、owing 150 years, the new continent played a role of market and material supply for the European Countries. With the famous document –The Declaration of Independence, the Untied States of America was born and a new era ha

29、d come.</p><p>　　At the very beginning, America was weak and feeble compared to the UK, and the US elites at that time thought the Old European Continent was a guilty and filthy place, so they did not want t

30、o attach their own destiny to the European Powers. Therefore, Isolationism was the main foreign policy for a long time since the new State was founded. </p><p>　　After decades of development, the situation c

31、hanged, and the policy of Isolationism gave its way to the strategy of involvement embodied in Monroe Doctrine. Its real importance lay in the slogan of “America for Americans”. The US refused to be involved in European

32、dispute, but it did not permit any European power to interfere in American affairs either. </p><p>　　During World War I, the US intended to take a neutralist foreign policy, but its complicated relationship

33、with Europe made it impossible. So, soon her strategy changed into involvement. Then it was impossible for America to retreat to her homeland as an isolated island country. After World War II, America played a leading ro

34、le in the building of the post-war world and became the most powerful giant. The Communist Soviet Union also grew strong after World WarⅡ, so the Truman Doctrine was carried </p><p>　　II. Different Foreign S

35、trategies in the Post-Cold War Era</p><p>　　With the dramatic change of East Europe and the breakdown of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the international relationship changed extensi

36、vely. America became the only superpower, so it was natural for US that many people thought it was the golden opportunity to rein the world. Many politicians and scholars thought that America was eventually the winner of

37、 the Cold War. It’s in such an international environment that different foreign strategies of America were discussed </p><p>　　A. Foreign Strategy of the First Bush Government</p><p>　　The end o

38、f the Cold War eliminated a number of reliable and well-recognized reference points, established new, as yet ambiguous ones, and stimulated a vigorous debate on the nature of America’s role in world affairs and an agile

39、foreign strategy for the post-Cold War era. That debate focused in part on whether the United States was declining and to what extent the United States should be involved in world affairs. It also focused on how to defin

40、e the national interests and American foreign strat</p><p>　　Many Americans believed the United States was the only winner of the Cold War, and the “American Victory” prevailed in this country; and they beli

41、eved, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there wasn’t any opponent strong enough to challenge the United States, and it was just the right time to reshape the world with American values. Very soon, however, many Amer

42、ican strategists and international issues experts were aware of the challenges and severe problems the changing international environm</p><p>　　It was in the atmosphere of the illusory “American victory” and

43、 extreme optimism about the future of American leadership that the Bush administration’s notion of “New World Order” was announced to the Congress during the Persian Gulf crisis.</p><p>　　The concept of “New

44、 World Order” includes the emphasis of American leadership in world affairs and the creation of a new “American Century”, the cooperation with and collaboration of allies and international as well as regional organizatio

45、ns, the expansion of American standards of democracy, freedom, human rights and market economy to the world, and the building of an America-led international security system to settle international disputes and regional

46、conflicts. Meanwhile, the Bush administra</p><p>　　After its public appearance, however, the strategy of “New World Order” met strong criticism. Many American scholars and strategists thought that the strate

47、gy of “New World Order” was ambiguous, and therefore, impractical. According to Joseph Nye, the “New World Order” involved an uneasy marriage between realism and Wilsonian idealism, and the problem for the Bush Administr

48、ation was that it thought and acted like Nixon, but borrowed the rhetoric of Wilson and Carter.</p><p>　　Besides criticism at home, the Bush administration’s “New World Order” met strong rejection abroad. Mi

49、khail Gorbachev warned in his speech “At the Threshold of the 21st Century” that “ a new world order based on the interests of only one power or a group of countries would have negative, or even dangerous, consequences.”

50、① He believed that the very possibility of a new world order and its effectiveness depended on the principle that a new world order assumed the ability to manage the world in a r</p><p>　　In addition, the Bu

51、sh administration’s “New World Order” was challenged in practice. The downfall of the Somali operation was just one of the typical examples.</p><p>　　The Bush administration’s “new world order” gradually los

52、t its attraction, and the American people lost their patient, and they were anxious to improve their lives. They wanted the government to pay more attention to the internal affairs.</p><p>　　B. Foreign Strat

53、egy of Clinton Government</p><p>　　When Clinton was elected the president, the Cold War just ended for a short time, and the international environment was uncertain. America suddenly lost her only opponent,

54、and the world order changed, which was beyond America's recognition, so a large debate broke out. The debate consisted of three aspects: how deeply should America be involved into world affairs; what was America'

55、s national interest in foreign relationship in the new era; which criteria should be used to measure America's inter</p><p>　　The Post-Cold War Era mainly started from Clinton Government. With the debacl

56、e of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, America adjusted her foreign strategy. Though Clinton shifted his priority to internal affairs, he vowed to “continue to lead the wor

57、ld”. He said, “When our vital interests are challenged, or the will and conscience of the international community defied, will act---with peaceful diplomacy when possible, with force when necessary.” ② H</p><p

58、>　　In the Post –Cold War time, America does not have any tangible enemy any longer. It’s a peak unreachable for other countries. But superficially speaking, Clinton government executed a strategy of retreat instead of

59、 expansion. He paid more attention to the internal economy, and usually dealt with international affairs by way of “Multilateralism”. When he took any intervening action, he was cautious and restrained. He emphasized the

60、 United Nation’s function, consensus and conservation, to construc</p><p>　　Clinton shifted the priority to the internal economy as it was the primary way to keep its sole position. Not any country could thr

61、eat America in politics or military, but in economic aspect, Europe and Japan were booming. So as to maintain its absolute priority, America had to defeat Europe and Japan in economy. Just as an England observer wrote, “

62、At the end of a millennium, the paradox of American’s power is that it was too powerful to be challenged by other nations, while it is still not stro</p><p>　　Time proved Clinton was right. Eight years later

63、 in 2000, America’s economy remained the strongest one among the capitalist countries. Japan could not say “No” to America anymore; Europe could, but it was pale and useless. However, as the only superpower, it was impos

64、sible for America to change its foreign strategy thoroughly. On March 8, 1992, a remark published on New York Times said that American’s first target was to prevent the appearance of new rivals and to maintain her sole s

65、uper positio</p><p>　　C. Foreign Strategy of George W. Bush Government</p><p>　　If “elegant” can be used to describe Clinton, then “rash” is suitable to Bush. If Clinton can be taken as a dove,

66、then Bush should be considered to be an eagle. Clinton is amiable for civil proposition, and then Bush attracted Americans with his cowboy blood. As soon as Bush became American president, he executed the strategy of “Un

67、ilateralism” and emphasized “Forestall” principle. </p><p>　　September 11 Attacks were really a tragedy to American people, but to Bush government, it was really a golden strategic opportunity. After those a

68、ttacks, a national conformity was established in America, and even the media has to be consistent with the government, and at the same time, with the compensation of the world, Bush completed the adjustment of its Foreig

69、n Army Rearrangement, and fully controlled the important foreign strategy points. He won the Afghanistan War with little price. Not lo</p><p>　　He urged to flex America’s muscles rest on several beliefs: Ame

70、rica’s power was enough to make the country secure; international institutions were vehicles that Lilliputians used to tie down the American Gulliver, not tools for amplifying American influence; and last, the United Sta

71、tes was a uniquely superpower, so the reassertion of American authority would be welcomed, not resisted. The administration’s decision to scuttle the Kyoto Protocol and other international agreements reflected those t<

72、;/p><p>　　Even when it became obvious that most of the world—angered by the ignorance of their interests and concerns—wouldn’t follow American into Iraq, the president pushed on in the belief that his opponents

73、 would eventually rally to his side. And if they did not, he reasoned, it wouldn’t matter, “At some point, we may be the only ones left,” the president told then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. “That’s OK with me. We ar

74、e America.”④</p><p>　　In spite of the voices of protest, and without the permission of the United Nations Security Council, the USA invaded into Iraq and overthrew the reign of Saddam Hussein. It was a pract

75、ice of his "Big Middle East" plan. It was a masterpiece in strategy, but it also brought America numerous troubles. Recently, Trends in Foreign Terrorism: Implications for the United States—a stark assessment o

76、f terrorism trends by American Intelligence Agencies found that the American invasion and occupation of I</p><p>　　By the start of Bush’s second term, America did, in many ways, stand alone. In France, Germa

77、ny, the Netherlands and Spain, fewer than half of those polled viewed the United States favorably. And in much of the Muslim world, Osama bin Laden was viewed far more favorably than Bush. The most visible manifestation

78、came in Iraq, where a deadly insurgency frustrated Washington’s political and military aims. Many of the countries that participated in the occupation have gradually brought their troops h</p><p>　　The Date

79、of Otc. 9th was an upset day as NPRK exploded her nuclear bomb. The No.1718 resolution on Otc.14th the Security Council came together unanimously behind resolution 1718, calling on governments around the world to clamp d

80、own on North Korea’s trade in missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It was doubtful whether this resolution was effective. NPRK’s demonstrative effect was influential. Japan may find an excuse to own her nuclear weap

81、ons. And it was certainly a golden opportunity for </p><p>　　It was useless to condemn NPRK or Iran separately, America should take some responsibilities. As Iranian officials pointed out, India, a country t

82、hat built nuclear weapons outside the NPT, and yet was now accepted by America, was recognized as a “de facto” nuclear power. If India could have any technology it wanted, then, why Iraq could not? </p><p>　

83、　Throughout his first term in office, George W. Bush broke with traditional American foreign-policy practices and challenged the norms of international relations. He walked away from treaties his predecessors had signed.

84、 He questioned the utility of the United Nations and other international institutions. And he was quick to resort to military force, going so far as launching a preventive war against Iraq.</p><p>　　Foreign

85、strategy in Bush’s second term looked kinder and gentler. The president visited Europe four times this year in a bid “to remind people that the world is better off, America is better off, Europe are better off, when we w

86、ork together.”⑤ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured the Senate during her confirmation hearings that “the time for diplomacy is now.”⑥</p><p>　　And in dealing with nuclear threats from Iran and North

87、 Korea—Iraq’s companions on the president’s “axis of evil” list—Bush opted for negotiations over the use of force. That was a far cry from the Washington buzz earlier this year that military action against Iran might soo

88、n be in the offing.</p><p>　　It was tempting to conclude that the administration changed course because it reexamined its assumptions about the way the world worked. But the differences in the second term ha

89、d less to do with personal epiphanies than with confronting the consequences of decisions made during the first term.</p><p>　　Abroad, the president discovered that other countries were pushing back at what

90、they saw as an arrogant and overbearing America. At home, the man who prides himself on spending his “political capital” found he had overdrawn his bank account, with an increasing number of Americans questioning not onl

91、y the war in Iraq, but also his domestic leadership, which left the president with little room to maneuver on foreign strategy.</p><p>　?、? Future Trends of US Foreign Strategies</p><p>　　At pre

92、sent, in order to maintain America’s core national interests, its foreign strategies will not be changed thoroughly no matter who is elected as the next US president. Although Iraq war is not anti-terrorism war by virtue

93、, it really causes more terrorist activities. Therefore, the terrorists and radical Islamic organizations will increase crazily if American troops withdraw from Iraq now, which, in a sense, will lead to the failure of US

94、A in anti-terrorism war. The failure, in turn, will lo</p><p>　　But if American troops station in Iraq, they will pay a high price. The longer they stay there, the more extensive opposition there are in the

95、Islamic world. It is American that initiated the war, so it’s a problem for America to bring a stable social situation for Iraq within a short time, and no other country would like to accompany with American to sacrifice

96、. So America has to hold to the end alone and works hard to ask help from the international society.</p><p>　　Now the world is becoming more complicated in Americans’ eyes. Terrorism seems impossible to be b

97、eaten down thoroughly. In fact, they have no more power to prevent NPRK and Iran’s nuclear activities. America is isolated more by European and Asian countries, and the Latin American is no longer its backyard. It was so

98、 welcomed at one time, but now the voice of “anti-American” can be heard all round the world. </p><p>　　The world admits that the US is unparallel in military, but military power is not enough to lead the wo

99、rld. America can force others to accept its thoughts, but others can also oppose the US. Force is helpless to solve these problems. America should know that its best arm is the soft power. People all around the world eat