Recent orders
U.S. and Vietnam Relations after cold war to the present
Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy
Author
Institution
U.S. and Vietnam Relations after cold war to the present
The relationship between the United States and Vietnam has been tumultuous since time immemorial. This has been changing depending on the administration that is in power. The intervention of the United States in the Vietnam War became unpopular after American soldiers were massacred in enormous numbers (Dunne et al, 2007). This led to the Nixon doctrine that saw the withdrawal of the United States’ troops from the Vietnam. It is worth noting that the U.S.-Vietnam economic and diplomatic relations were virtually nonexistent for over 15 years after North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam in 1975 (Dunne et al, 2007). In fact, it maintained a trade embargo and even suspended foreign assistance to the Unified Vietnam. This was aimed at pressuring the Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia (Manyin, 2012). Vietnam, on the other hand, was demanding that the United States provides money in postwar reconstruction aid, which Nixon administration had promised (Manyin, 2012).
However, the relationship between the two countries has been improving since the 90’s after president Clinton showed no opposition to the notion of Vietnam receiving financial assistance. In 1994, the relationship improved with the lifting of the trade embargo and the passing of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which expressed the chamber’s support for normalization of relations between the two countries. There was a tremendous improvement in the resumption of normal bilateral relations between the two nations under the Bush administration (Manyin, 2012).
Despite concerns pertaining to the Vietnamese human rights record, the US-Vietnam BTA was ratified in October 2001, which required that the United States reduce the imports tariffs on Vietnam while the Vietnam liberalized its markets. The relations have continued to improve under Obama’s administration especially after the formation of partnerships in the multilateral fora such as the Lower Mekong Initiative that comprised five countries. In addition, the United States has been involved tremendously in Vietnam’s quest for nuclear energy and assisted in drafting laws on the same. On the same note, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation in the Civil Nuclear Field, designed to enhance cooperation in varied fields (Manyin, 2012).
Moreover, the US has heightened its assistance from about $1 million in 1991 to about $140 million in 2011 financial year. However, the financial aid may be jeopardized by the poor human rights record that the country continues to have (Manyin, 2012). Nevertheless, there has been an improvement or enhancement in the relations between these two countries on a military basis. In the 2009 financial year, the United States extended its foreign military financing for the Vietnamese government. The relations between the two countries have continued to improve and triggered cooperation on varied fronts. As much as the involvement of the US in the domestic politics of Vietnam has increased, it has adopted a hands-off style in the relationship (Manyin, 2012).
United States- China relations
Relationship between China and the United States, like the US-Vietnam relations, has been tumultuous. This was especially after the Second World War, which resulted in the emergence of two factions. These were the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic Of China (ROC). The United States recognized and supported the ROC, in which case it worked with it against the other faction until the rapprochement in the Nixon and Kissinger administration (Manyin et al, 2012). During the Cold War, China and the U.S had a common enemy in the form of Russia. The United States provided China with a counterbalance to the soviets especially as concerning the border clashes. However, the fall of the Cold War meant that the two countries lost a common enemy, in which case their relationship became tense (Manyin et al, 2012). This was complemented by the development of the United States as the undisputed global hegemon. The tension between the two countries has been added by China’s rise into a global economic power, as well as its expansion of influence to areas rich with resources such as Africa. This has offered an alternative to the United States Model. Nevertheless, the trade relations between these two countries have heightened or improved after the opening of the Chinese economy (Manyin et al, 2012).
Comparison and contrasting
It is evident that the relations between the United States and the two countries have been triggered by its desire to defeat the Soviet Union. This explains why the relationships broke or seemed to be tense after the end of the Cold War. In addition, it is evident that the current or existing relationship between the US and the two countries is primarily based on the liberalization of their markets (Crockatt, 2006).
However, the relationship between the United States and the two countries seem to be extremely different. The United States and China relate as equals since they recognize each other as global powers. The same cannot, however, be said of the United States –Vietnam relations. The Vietnam recognizes the United States as its benefactor, which explains why Vietnam was grated conditional Normal Trade Relations under the Bilateral Trade Agreement in 2001. In this case, the United States was to reduce its tariffs on Vietnamese imports while Vietnam was to undertake varied market liberalization measures (Crockatt, 2006). This agreement was renewed in 2006. In addition, the United States still aims at checking the progress of China.
Going by the relationship between the United States and the two countries, it is evident that its diplomacy has mainly been based on the trade relations. In addition, the United States has stopped pegging its relations on the human rights records of countries rather, it pegs it on the trade opportunities (Crockatt, 2006). This is especially considering that China and Vietnam have the highest human rights violation rates (Crockatt, 2006).
References
Crockatt, R. (2006). The End of the Cold War & The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (2007). ‘International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manyin, ME. Daggett, S. Dolven, B, Lawrence , SV, Martin, M, O’Rourke, R, Vaughn, B (2012). Pivot to the pacific: the Obama administration’s rebalancing toward Asia. New York: congressional Research Service
Manyin, M. E (2012). US- Vietnam Relations in 2011: Current Issues and Implications for U.S Policy. New York: Congressional Research Service
(Manyin et al, 2012) (Manyin, 2012) (Dunne et al, 2007) (Crockatt, 2006)
U.S Foreign Policy Shaping the Future
U.S Foreign Policy: Shaping the Future
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
The article is essential in analyzing the effect of making future predictions. The article emphasizes the need to plan for a better future through policy making such as U.S Foreign policy. The future however has infinite possibilities some of which are more probable. Individual actions can affect the possibilities through the choices made in everyday life. Therefore, it is important to assess the implication of various scenarios and whatever their driving force is. Planning involves creating and maintaining policies to achieve a goal. This intelligent human aspect help integrate ideas to forecast developments while making preparations as how to react to the changes. Prediction is forecasting the future while planning involves is a clear prediction of how the future will be. Planning may involve formal procedural endeavors which include creation meetings to assess issues to be tackled, the objectives and strategies to be met. The future depends on current actions and plans. There is a need to be prepared of the processes that may be the outcome of the plans made.
The article points out that there could be a change resulting from current trends. For instance, in nineteen seventy eight, there was hardly any predict ion that China would become fourth largest economy globally. Currently, there are suggestions that geopolitics by the year twenty forty, China, India, Russia and Brazil will dominate assuming that there is minimal political disruption and a linear projection of the economic growth. The assumption ignores the conflicts of interest that may arise among the stated nations. Another issue that crop up is that precise estimates misleads in most cases. Therefore, future projections have to have a start and inevitably make assumptions (Joseph, 2009).
According to the article, The US National Intelligence Council made relative certainties regarding circa 2020. These relative certainties include continuation of globalization with reduced western orientation, larger world economy, new technologies as a result of global companies and the rise of Asia. In addition, in-ground supply of energy will be enough to meet the demand with possible supply disruptions. The council stated that non-state actors such as terrorist groups and charitable organizations will be more. Also, political Islam will continue its potency and many states will have and seek more weapons of mass destruction. There shall also be instability of Africa, Asia and Middle East with a less likelihood of a World War for great powers. The projections includes that there will be more ethical and environmental issues with United States being world’s only most powerful nation. These trends however will lead to different scenarios since the trends contradict. If that is the case, the key forces facilitating the future include demography where population will increase or decrease depending on many factors. The emergence of more powers as stated by the council might lead to diversified outcomes as reflected by the eruption of two World Wars resulting from failure to accommodate rising powers (Joseph, 2009).
From the article, geopolitics is characterized by increase in non state actors facilitated by technology. For instance, 40 years ago, global communication was restricted to corporation, governments and was very costly. Currently, this has changed due to innovations reducing cost of communicatin e.g. internet and satellite photos. Diffusion of power from states may become difficult than power movements among the states. Geopolitics will be shaped by three political agents. First, the way China uses its power may result to inequality leading to instability, or might become a responsible stakeholder in politics globally. Second, political Islam which is characterized by terrorism, civil war and oil conflicts might lead to border closure, economic dislocation and higher mortality. Third, the way United States uses its power may not be enough to protect citizens. Although, its military will still be dominant, it won’t prevent climate change, global pandemics, international crime and terrorism which need soft power and corporation to obtain a solution. Terrorism using weapons of mass destruction will cause deaths, Protectionism and loss of liberty. To defeat this, intelligence sharing and cooperation among different nations is needed, Climate change may be sudden resulting to catastrophes such as sudden fall of Antarctic ice shelf and sudden sea level rise dramatically changing the global politics (Joseph, 2009).
In my view, United States has a crucial role to create a democratic, prosperous, and a secure world. This would not only benefit the Americans but also the international community. United States has a role of safeguarding the commercial interactions through globalization and control the proliferation of technology regarding weapons of mass destruction. Foreign policies that would prioritize are military strategy and missile defense to curb terrorism and foreign wars. Foreign policies facilitating foreign aid and anti-drug war would benefit the International community and United States respectively. Investing in other energy sources to reduce overreliance on oil and handling the issue of climate change is essential. However, there are various challenges that would hinder implementation of such strategies. Future makers of the foreign policies will have to face hindrances from human right activists locally and internationally. The policy makers have to ensure that their foreign policies do not violate international law (Shea et al, 2009).
Reference
HYPERLINK “http://www.google.co.ke/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Daniel+M+Shea%22” Shea M. Daniel, HYPERLINK “http://www.google.co.ke/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Joanne+Green%22” Green Joanne, HYPERLINK “http://www.google.co.ke/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Christopher+Smith%22” Smith Christopher. (2009). Living Democracy. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
HYPERLINK “http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/author/Joseph+S.+Nye+Jr./” Joseph S. Nye Jr. (2009). Shaping the future. McKinsey & Company.
< http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/geopolitics/shaping-the-future>
U.S Budget The Budget Message of the President and Rescuing the Economy
U.S Budget: The Budget Message of the President and Rescuing the Economy
In these two sections of the 2010/2011 budget of the United States, the possibility of the depression that would hit the country is comprehensively discussed as of the time the current American president Barrack Obama took office. Particularly in the ‘Message of the President,’ the issues covered included the reduction of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the inevitable crisis of the finances that radically affected the country’s economy. The challenges facing the economy are also specifically addressed in this section such as unemployment issues. In the ‘Rescuing the Economy’ the same issues are covered with details and specifics in the figures given. Specific ideas are also adequately presented in this section that involves the strategies to improve the situation. One of these includes the Recovery Act (U.S Budget, 2010) which the board anticipated that if well implemented, would work a great deal towards improving the economic crisis.
The sections also define the challenges that have been faced in the economy, thus largely contributing to the crisis. The two sections address the unemployment challenge diversely. The budget seeks to cater for this problem as a way of correcting the situation. It is thus recognized as a major challenge facing the country and their general national income in terms of the Gross Domestic Product. A challenge of unaffordable healthcare leading to a less healthy community and working force is also addressed in the ‘Message of the President.’ Correspondingly, the ‘Rescuing the Economy’ section is also clear on the many workers that were laid off from the crisis that may have less faith in the government and the efforts to improve the economy, thus considered a major challenge. However, the goals intended by this budget are clear that have a higher possibility than not of creating better economic conditions and rescuing the position of most employees and those adversely affected. The most significant of the goals is the implementing of strategies such as the Recovery Act that according to the ‘Rescuing the Economy Section’ will create answerability and lucidity in how the finances flow in the economy. Undoubtedly, this will achieve the figures intended with minimal risks of management.
It is worth noting that most communities were adversely affected by the fall in the American economy. This not only showed in the country but the world considering that America was a great economic giant that influenced many countries as well. Implementation of the strategies will improve the community living standards and assist to realize the American dream which allows people to live on at least mandatory minimal if they work hard enough. Similarly, the realization of the intended funds to cover the budget of up to $200million will ensure that the community receives a reasonable factoring of finances for self development and realization of development projects. Individually, the objective of restoring employment opportunities will be positively achieved, thus, a step ahead in recovering the Gross Domestic Product. The budget thus has a constructive impact on both the community and the individuals living in it following the strategies suggested.
From an individual point of view, it is worth noting that the American Government is doing the best it can to improve the lives of its people and the country at large. The 2010/2011 budget is well comprehensive and details important and achievable strategies that improve the economic conditions of the country. The attention given to the critical sectors such as the reforms anticipated in the health care system are also a great step for the economy. Ensuring improved standards in the education and security systems (U.S Budget, 2010) with adequate finances allocated also helps to achieve this purpose both directly and indirectly. The specific message in the ‘Message of the President’ of taking responsibility also works towards achieving the goals specified in the budget to better the country.
References:
Budget of the U.S. Government. (2010). Fiscal Year 2011. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/budget.pdf