Late 20th century united states history

(Assignment) Late 20th century United s How is America perceived by other countries depends on its foreign policies since the late half of 20th century. It is stated that ‘ dear Uncle Sam has recently metamorphosed into a wicked Uncle Sap’. The above stated expression of the anti- Americans cannot be undermined altogether as we go through the nation’s history of post-1945 foreign relations which is evidently founded on economic interests and intensive warfare. However, to understand this history of American unfair ‘ press,’ one needs even to trace back to the 1898 American- Spanish war. Though not very extensive, the war indeed revealed its hidden lust for expansionism in the Puerto Rico and Cuban regions of the Caribbean islands. The then so called American interest in the independence of Cuba has been reflected numerous times throughout its international relations until very recently it happened in Afghan and Iraq. The only difference was that the new initiative is fondly called ‘ war against terror’. To illustrate, the war on Afghanistan ended in killing thousands of innocents including women and children. The main aim behind the Afghan war was to trace Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members, and ultimately uprooting the Al-Qaeda form Afghanistan. But as the world witnessed, the Americans failed in fulfilling either of them. Obviously, it is the political pressure that took the lead in planning America’s all such operations. For instance, the Democratic Party forced the president William McKinley and his government to execute the war against Spain. Still moving forward and coming to the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, we notice that the arrogance in the military operations of United States has grown to its peak stage. Although political philosophers are deeply at odds with regard to America’s killing of Osama bin Laden, the act was evidently against the international law because it entered Pakistan soil without the authorization of the UN Security Council, and even without the knowledge of Pakistan officials. This shows the ultimate arrogance the nation maintains in the military policies. To illustrate, Article 39, Chapter VII of the UN Charter states that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, in the pursuit of Laden, America did not seek the permission of UN Security Council. On the other hand, according to the supporters of the American naivete (?), when it comes to fundamental human rights, the argument of state sovereignty cannot be a constraint. For instance, Pellete refers to the Kosovo issue where NATO was criticized for its violation of international law. He argues that although UN Security Council turned a deaf ear to the cry in the area, it does not mean that there was no human rights violation in Kosovo. Although as UN human rights investigators observe, ‘ this case (killing of Laden) may warrant an exception’ (Chicago Tribune), many of the military policies still it maintains in Iraq and Afghan or in every aspect of international politics derive out of political pressure and economic interests. In short, we can figure out that the American foreign and military policies at times reflect a kind of American optimism or idealism mixed with arrogance. Works Cited Chicago Tribune. “ Lethal and Legal: International Law and the Killing of Bin Laden”. May 6, 2011. Web 6 June 2011 Meernik, David. The political use of military force in US foreign policy. US: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004. Pellet, Alain. “ State Sovereignty and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights: An International Law perspective”. Pugwash Online, Feb 2000. Web 6 June 2011