Essay Instructions: POL 300 ? Assignments and Rubrics 10-18-11) Page 7 of 11 Assignment 2: Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy
Due Week 9 and worth 175 points
This paper will be a revised and expanded version of the first research paper. Based on your instructor?s feedback, you will first revise the first paper. Then you will add three-to-four (3-4) new pages that address the following:
1. Summarize events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War.
2. Identify and describe the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper.
3. Select a country you did not write about in the first paper, and describe the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country.
4. Contrast and compare the two (2) relationships.
5. Using the two (2) countries as examples, summarize how the U.S. has changed the way it relates to other countries in the past 20 years.
6. Cite at least four (4) reputable sources in addition to the textbook, not including Wikipedia, encyclopedias, or dictionaries.
Your assignment must:
? Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
? Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student?s name, the professor?s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
? Identify the cultural, economic, and political context of information resources, and interpret information in light of that context
? Use technology and information resources to research issues in international problems.
? Write clearly and concisely about international problems using proper writing mechanics.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.POL 300 ? Assignments and Rubrics
Points: 175 Assignment 2: Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy
Criteria Unacceptable
Below 60% F Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69% D Fair
70-79% C Proficient
80-89% B Exemplary
90-100% A
A. Student used faculty feedback from previous assignment to improve this assignment.
Weight: 10% Did not submit or incompletely used faculty feedback from previous assignment to improve this assignment. Insufficiently used faculty feedback from previous assignment to improve this assignment. Partially used faculty feedback from previous assignment to improve this assignment. Satisfactorily used faculty feedback from previous assignment to improve this assignment. Thoroughly used faculty feedback from previous assignment to improve this assignment.
1. Summarize events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War.
Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely summarized events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War. Insufficiently summarized events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War. Partially summarized events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War. Satisfactorily summarized events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War. Thoroughly summarized events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War.
2. Identify and describe the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper. Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely identified and describe the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper. Insufficiently identified and described the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper. Partially identified and described the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper. Satisfactorily identified and described the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper. Thoroughly identified and described the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper.
3. Select a country you did not write about in the first paper, and describe the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country.
Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely selected a country you did not write about in the first paper, and described the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country. Insufficiently selected a country you did not write about in the first paper, and described the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country. Partially selected a country you did not write about in the first paper, and described the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country. Satisfactorily selected a country you did not write about in the first paper, and described the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country. Thoroughly selected a country you did not write about in the first paper, and described the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country.
4. Contrast and compare the two (2) relationships.
Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely contrasted and compared the two (2) relationships. Insufficiently contrasted and compared the two (2) relationships. Partially contrasted and compared the two (2) relationships. Satisfactorily contrasted and compared the two (2) relationships. Thoroughly contrasted and compared the two (2) relationships.
5. Using the two (2) countries as examples, summarize how the U.S. has changed the way it relates to other Did not submit or incompletely summarized how the U.S. has changed the way Insufficiently summarized how the U.S. has changed the way it Partially summarized how the U.S. has changed the way it relates to Satisfactorily summarized how the U.S. has changed the way it Thoroughly summarized how the U.S. has changed the way it
countries in the past 20 years.
Weight: 15% it relates to other countries in the past 20 years. relates to other countries in the past 20 years. other countries in the past 20 years. relates to other countries in the past 20 years. relates to other countries in the past 20 years.
6. 4 References in addition to the textbook, not including Wikipedia, encyclopedias, or dictionaries
Weight: 5% No references provided Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.
7. Clarity and writing mechanics
Weight: 10% More than 8 errors present 7-8 errors present 5-6 errors present 3-4 errors present 0-2 errors present
REVISED PAPER:
The Truman Doctrine: An Overview
Assignment 1 Week 5
Dr. Tinsley
Eneida Talbot
Strayer University
August 10, 2012
The Truman Doctrine: An overview
The Truman Doctrine was the first, formal statement by a US president that America would intervene in the affairs of the world in a formal and consistent manner. It was the death knell of American isolationism and was an open acknowledgement of America?s position as a world power willing to take aggressive action in international affairs. Truman unambiguously characterized the Soviet Union as evil, casting America?s commitment to aid the Greek government against communist insurgents in a moral light (Coffey, 1984, p. 233).
In a speech to a joint session of Congress in 1947 in which he outlined the doctrine, Truman stated: ?One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion. This was a fundamental issue in the war with Germany and Japan. Our victory was won over countries which sought to impose their will, and their way of life, ?upon other nations? (Truman, 1947). Truman believed that the US must learn the lessons of World War II, which he saw as illustrating the dangers of appeasement of aggressive powers. ?World War II convinced Truman that America must not again shirk its responsibility to international collective security as it did after World War I? (Coffey, 1984, p. 236).
The first part of Truman?s speech was specifically focused upon what he believed was the strategic and moral imperative to provide arms to members of the Greek resistance to the communist insurgents within that nation. Critics of Truman?s understanding of the situation, which still exist today, point out that the communist party within Greece had a great deal of support, particularly because of its resistance to fascism. According to Truman, while he admitted ?the Government of Greece is not perfect....Foreign observers, including 692 Americans, considered this election to be a fair expression of the views of the Greek people. The Greek Government has been operating in an atmosphere of chaos and extremism. It has made mistakes. The extension of aid by this country does not mean that the United States condones everything that the Greek Government has done or will do? (Truman, 1947). Truman asked Congress to authorize $400 million in economic and military assistance to Greece and Turkey. The British government was financially incapable of giving any more aid, given the economic ravages its territory had suffered during the war (Freid, 2007).
The implications of the speech spanned much greater than the Greek situation. Truman?s logic was that if Greece and Turkey fell under communist control, the rest of the region would follow, including the Middle East, like a series of dominos. The Truman Doctrine is linked to the ?Domino Theory? of world affairs, based in the point of view that if one nation turned to communism, the other nations would follow (Kernell, 1976, p. 23). The ?Domino Theory? also stressed a black-and-white view of international institutions, viewing the world as divided into wither good or bad. ?One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority? (Truman, 1947).
Truman?s speech marked a major break with how the US had traditionally responded to its involvement in international conflicts. ?All who participated in the extraordinary developments of the period were aware that a major turning in American history was taking place. After past wars, the United States had withdrawn at least temporarily, into an isolationist mood and policy (Kernell, 1976, p.20). It also marked a major development in the history of Truman?s presidency. Truman initially had continued with Roosevelt?s conciliatory attitude towards the Soviet Union, but after the Potsdam Conference his attitude experienced a marked shift (Coffey, 1984, p. 236).
The initial response to the speech was mixed. Although, at the time, there was rousing applause in Congress, Republican isolationists were reluctant to endorse Truman?s views. Truman had demanded that the speech be unequivocal in its opposition to the Soviet Union, despite pressure from some of his advisors to make it more specific to the situation in Greece and less internationalist in scope (Kernell, 1976, p. 24). Leftist critics of the Truman Doctrine believed that by ?abandoning Roosevelt's policy of accommodation for the aggressive pursuit of liberal-capitalist interests? Truman scared a cautious and conservative Soviet Union concerned only with its legitimate security interests? (Coffey, 1984, p. 232). They argued that it ?heightened public fears? and ?contributed to a parochial, self-righteous nationalism? (Kernell, 1976, p. 24).
However, it is important not to transpose contemporary debates onto the climate in which Truman gave his speech. Today, support for military aid is often seen as a ?conservative? position, partially because of the fears amongst liberals of overseas engagement. This reluctance to support ?freedom fighters?, can be linked to the failures of the Vietnam War. In Truman?s time, isolationism was largely associated with the Republican Party. In contrast, moderately liberal intellectuals supported what they saw as the Greek cause of freedom and the responsibility of all nation-states to one another in the international community, particularly after the horrors of the Holocaust. In polling after the speech, ?with but one exception, the higher the educational level, the more pervasive was support for aid to Greece. When controlling, for the 1944 vote and evaluation of Truman, the well- educated population, was the most supportive of the Truman Doctrine? (Kernell, 1976, p. 40). This was also true of initial support for the Vietnam War?the more educated the individual, the more he or she was likely to condone the Kennedy or Johnson Administration?s support for the Vietnamese (Kernell, 1976, p. 40)
The Truman Doctrine was not interpreted as expansive and militaristic in most quarters when it was first given. It ultimately advocated containment, rather than open engagement with the Soviet Union, in a world with far more powerful weapons than had ever been known in human history. According to the Truman Doctrine, although Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that while ?no geographical limit was given or intended, the test of practicality would be applied in specific cases [and] American aid would be extended only to autonomous nations whose independence was threatened? (Coffey, 1984, p. 241). The interests of the United States must be served, which meant extending priority to Europe over Asia, and always the US must ask the question: ?Was our aid really needed? Would our aid be effective in solving the problems of the country? China later failed this test (Coffey, 1984, p. 241). Containment policy was later codified in NSC-68 (National Security Council Report), ?a historic document in American national security policy approved by Truman in September 1950 [which] crystallized containment policy, uniting power with principle in a strategy that matched military means to political ends. NSC-68 clearly depicted the stakes in the Cold War. It portrayed the Soviet Union as an aggressive, totalitarian empire bent on world hegemony and limited only by expediency? (Coffey, 1984, p. 246).
The Truman Doctrine was resonant because it seemed to combine both American principles and America?s sense of exceptionalism as the greatest world power that could defend freedom. It also catered to the fears of communist encroachment and the expanding danger of the Soviet sphere. It fostered what Truman successor Dwight Eisenhower would later calls the ?military industrial complex? or highly powerful military and security bureaucratic entities eager to justify their power, preferably in a manner not accountable to Congress. Their secrecy was justified with the rhetoric of ?national security? above all else. It is possible to draw a line, albeit not a direct one, between the US?s involvement in the Gulf War and the Truman Doctrine. Communism may be long dead, but the United States belief that aggressive powers must be contained and that ?making the world safe for democracy? requires the overthrow of tyrants began to have traction in the minds and hearts of the American public, thanks to the Truman Doctrine. It was later used to justify American involvement in Vietnam. John Kennedy said Americans were ?the watchmen on the walls of world freedom? (Coffey, 1984, p. 248).
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the Truman Doctrine was its increasing distance from the original context which produced it. It evolved to a more general ?Domino Theory? of idea contagion that could be used to justify a wide range of interventions. In retrospect, there is no doubt that Stalin had expansionist aims upon the rest of Europe, yet it also seems clear that the US was quick to support right-wing leaders and causes to oppose communism in a manner that was antithetical to democracy. Merely because Stalin?s domination of Easter Europe was illegitimate did not mean, by analogy that the Viet Cong lacked popular support as anti-colonialist fighters. The specific actions of the Truman Doctrine?opposition to further Stalinist expansion, support of the beleaguered city of Berlin, and the establishment of NATO were necessary at the time?but afterward, the Truman Doctrine often blinded later policy-makers to seeing the specifics of the every-changing international environment. They continued to fight the wars of the past, rather than looked at the present and into the future.
References
Coffey, John W. (1985). The statesmanship of Harry S Truman. The Review of Politics, 47(2):
231-252.
Fried, Dave. (2007). An enduring legacy. The New York Times. Retrieved:
www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/opinion/12iht-edfried.4883166.html
Kernell, Samuel. (1976). The Truman Doctrine Speech: A case study of the dynamics of
presidential opinion leadership. Social Science History, 1(1): 20-44.
Retrieved: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170931
Truman, Harry S. (1947). Address before a joint session of Congress. Retrieved:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/trudoc.asp
