HCC Political Science Paper

Description

book link (CHAPTER 15 AND CHAPTER 17) https://www.dropbox.com/t/TJ42YAeVPemRNwkTwrite a govt essay. Follow the instructionModule 5 Final Exam and Foreign Policy Essay Introduction: In this essay, I will combine information from both the textbook, in class discussion, and my syllabus in order to better understand and explain issues, ideas, concepts and models related to American government and politics. I will pay particular attention to building a comprehensive system of government linked to a process designed to deal with policy problems.My essay’s length will be proportionate to the effort needed to fully cover course material and address the component parts of the assignment.In my essay I will address the following:Section A: With respect to Foreign Policy create the internal network of US foreign policy-making. Who are the internal US actors who create US foreign policy? Next, Identify the international and global network of actors whose policies intersect with US foreign policy? You can find much of this material in the textbook and d2l table of contents.Section B: Analyze the US foreign policy chapter in the textbook from the Realist approach focused on creating a foreign policy based on a zero-sum game. (chapter 15 and 17)Section C: Next, analyze the US foreign policy chapter in the textbook from either an Idealist formulation for US foreign policy, or a Postcolonial formulation. Please use the articles I have included. (use the Models to Examine US Foreign Policy.docx file attached)Conclusion: In this essay I have addressed issues, concepts ideas and models relevant to understanding and explaining American government and politics along with differing methods of describing what is functional and dysfunctional.Models to Examine US Foreign Policy: Realism and Idealism
Realism: The Trump administrations emphasis on “Make America Great Again” is one
interpretation of International Relations (IR) as described by REALISM.
IR is the study of political and economic interactions between states (governments of countries)
and increasingly also with non-state actors (Amnesty International, The Red Cross, Doctors
Without Borders, and Transnational Corporations like Apple and British Petroleum, and
increasingly after 9/11 terrorist organizations like al-Gaeda). Realism is one of the major
theories attempting to explain those political and economic relations.
The basic focus of realism is the ability of a given government to protect its country and project
power through foreign policies abroad in an attempt to influence the domestic and foreign
policies of other governments. Power, then is a central focus of realism. Power is basically the
capability of a government to make another government do something it would not otherwise
do or to stop it from doing something it wants to do.
So, we need to recognize that realists believe that international relations is system
characterized by anarchy. Anarchy presents itself as a system where all the actors have some
capability to make up the rules of international relations. It is the powerful governments that
have the ability to control IR through the use of power. Other governments bend to the will of
the powerful. Power is described in several ways: Most often power is affixed to military
might. This is a tangible ability to influence other governments either by threat of the use of
force or offering protection to another government who is being confronted by an aggressor.
While military power is not the only avenue to power on the international stage, realists tend
to place it as the number one characteristic. Economic capacity is another measurement of
power. Intangible characteristics of power include things like the national will and popular
support for the government and its use of power.
Realists make a number of assumptions about IR:
Humans by nature are interested principally in self-preservation. They are selfish. We don’t do
things without some expectation of getting something in return.
IR is characterized as a system of anarchy. The IR system has no central power capable of
controlling authority. In the anarchy of IR anything goes unless another government is
powerful enough to stop you. It is a dog-eat-dog world where “might makes right.”
Political relations tends to be focused on “Transactional Politics” where no act is done on any
basis other than what is in the best interest of the government. In this sense the ends justify
the means. Anything goes. Morality is to be treated as suspect. Realists are skeptical of
countries claiming to act out of good will or from an ethical basis
The most important international actors are governments/states of countries.
Conflict is the natural state of international relations.
Power is not distributed equitably. Some countries are more powerful than others.
Governments act in “rational ways.” This means that they act in ways that support their selfinterest and the survival of their country.
The only check to a state’s power is another state or group of states.
The Balance of Power: In a world characterized by anarchy realists believe that excesses or
abuses of power will be curbed by power balancing power. For every strong country there is a
counterbalance coming from another country or a coalition of countries. This creates
equilibrium, but not a sense of balance. There is always a potential for conflict.
Idealism:
Idealism is an approach to IR that seeks to advance ideals or moral and ethical goals. An
example of these ideals is human rights. Idealism sees human rights as a universal set of rights
for all humans regardless of what country they reside in. This is one of the points to the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Idealism sees the anarchic nature of
international relations as antithetical to human progress. And, idealism argues that human
beings have it within their power to change inequities both internal to a given country and
globally for all human beings.
Idealism rests on a set of assumptions:
Political and Economic power can be used for the benefit of all humanity.
All humans desire the same things in terms of security, welfare, recognition and respect.
International anarchy can be transcended and a more harmonious international system can be
constructed.
A global referee can be empowered to act as a centralized forum for countries to communicate,
collaborate and reduce tensions. Governments of countries will follow the “rules of the game”
established by this entity. This is the hope for the United Nations when it was created.
Political interactions need not be transactional. They can be transformational, and for the
benefit of all without falling back on a zero sum -power relations where there are winners and
losers, and those who win do so at the expense of the losers- game of international relations.
Idealists see realists as supporting a corrupt international system that benefits the few on the
backs of the many. They believe that the disparity between the developed countries who are
comparatively rich and wealthy and powerful and the underdeveloped countries as needlessly
creating the worst of all possible worlds for the poor.
A international system can be created of collective security where diplomacy is more important
than brute force.
All countries can make a contribution to the well-being of all humanity
Idealists argue that embedded in the political culture of many countries are a set of common
core values that are fundamentally the same. Those values, like the American values of
freedom, justice, liberty and equality should be promoted in the foreign relations of countries
and not used as empty platitudes.
This Essay Template is your Final Exam. It references material from all the previous
module templates and is comprehensive.
Samantha Power
GOVT 2305
Module 5 Final Exam and Foreign Policy Essay
Introduction:
In this essay, I will combine information from both the textbook, in class
discussion, and my syllabus in order to better understand and explain issues,
ideas, concepts and models related to American government and politics. I
will pay particular attention to building a comprehensive system of
government linked to a process designed to deal with policy problems.
My essay’s length will be proportionate to the effort needed to fully cover
course material and address the component parts of the assignment.
In my essay I will address the following:
Section A: With respect to Foreign Policy create the internal network of US foreign
policy-making. Who are the internal US actors who create US foreign policy? Next,
Identify the international and global network of actors whose policies intersect with
US foreign policy? You can find much of this material in the textbook and d2l table
of contents.
Section B: Analyze the US foreign policy chapter in the textbook from the Realist
approach focused on creating a foreign policy based on a zero-sum game.
Section C: Next, analyze the US foreign policy chapter in the textbook from either
an Idealist formulation for US foreign policy, or a Postcolonial formulation. Please
use the articles I have included.
Conclusion: In this essay I have addressed issues, concepts ideas and models
relevant to understanding and explaining American government and politics
along with differing methods of describing what is functional and
dysfunctional.
12 font…Inch margins…Double space Introduction, body and conclusion.
Other State Department Archive Sites
You are in: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice > What the Secretary Has Been Saying > 2006 Secretary Rice’s Remarks > January 2006: Secretary Rice’s Remarks
Transformational Diplomacy
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
January 18, 2006
Remarks from Question-and-Answer Session | Fact Sheet: Transformational Diplomacy
(11:00 a.m. EST)
Thank you very much. Thank you President DeGioia for that wonderful introduction. Thank you. Happy for that great start to this session. I ‘d like to thank the Board of Trustees and say how pleased I am to be here at Georgetown University’s distinguished School of
Foreign Service. I just have to recognize my friend, Andrew Natsios, who’s sitting in the front row, even if he did leave us to come to Georgetown. He said he was doing it because this is an institution that he loves dearly. You’ve got a fine man and you’re going to have a
fine professor in Andrew Natsios. Thank you for your service to the country. (Applause.)
I want to thank members of the diplomatic corps who are here and several members of the Administration. I also want you to know that I do know a good deal about Georgetown and it is because this is a fine school of foreign service for which we all owe a debt of
gratitude for the people that you have trained, for the people who have come to us in government, for the people from whom I have learned as an academic. This is also a fine university in general, a university that is well known for its dedication to learning, but also its
dedication to values and to social justice. And it’s also a university that is recovering its heritage in basketball and I look very much forward to this year. (Applause.)
Almost a year ago today in his second Inaugural Address, President Bush laid out a vision that now leads America into the world. “It is the policy of the United States,” the President said, “to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the
ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” To achieve this bold mission, America needs equally bold diplomacy, a diplomacy that not only reports about the world as it is, but seeks to change the world itself. I and others have called this mission “transformational diplomacy.” And today I want to
explain what it is in principle and how we are advancing it in practice.
We are living in an extraordinary time, one in which centuries of international precedent are being overturned. The prospect of violent conflict among great powers is more remote than ever. States are increasingly competing and cooperating in peace, not preparing for war. Peoples in China and
India, in South Africa and Indonesia and Brazil are lifting their countries into new prominence. Reform — democratic reform — has begun and is spreading in the Middle East. And the United States is working with our many partners, particularly our partners who share our values in Europe and in Asia
and in other parts of the world to build a true form of global stability, a balance of power that favors freedom.
At the same time, other challenges have assumed a new urgency. Since its creation more than 350 years ago, the modern state system has rested on the concept of sovereignty. It was always assumed that every state could control and direct the threats emerging from its territory. It was also
assumed that weak and poorly governed states were merely a burden to their people, or at most, an international humanitarian concern but never a true security threat.
Today, however, these old assumptions no longer hold. Technology is collapsing the distance that once clearly separated right here from over there. And the greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them. The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the
international distribution of power. In this world it is impossible to draw neat, clear lines between our security interests, our development efforts and our democratic ideals. American diplomacy must integrate and advance all of these goals together.
So, I would define the objective of transformational diplomacy this way: to work with our many partners around the world, to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. Let me be
clear, transformational diplomacy is rooted in partnership; not in paternalism. In doing things with people, not for them; we seek to use America’s diplomatic power to help foreign citizens better their own lives and to build their own nations and to transform their own futures.
In extraordinary times like those of today, when the very terrain of history is shifting beneath our feet, we must transform old diplomatic institutions to serve new diplomatic purposes. This kind of challenge is sweeping and difficult but it is not unprecedented; America has done this kind of work
before. In the aftermath of World War II, as the Cold War hardened into place, we turned our diplomatic focus to Europe and parts of Asia. We hired new people. We taught them new languages, we gave them new training. We partnered with old adversaries in Germany and Japan and helped them
to rebuild their countries. Our diplomacy was instrumental in transforming devastated countries into thriving democratic allies, allies who joined with us for decades in the struggle to defend freedom from communism.
With the end of the Cold War, America again rose to new challenges. We opened 14 new embassies in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and we repositioned over 100 of our diplomats to staff them. Our efforts helped newly liberated peoples to transform the character of their countries
and now many of them, too, have become partners in liberty and freedom, members of NATO, members of the European Union, something unthought of just a few years ago. And during the last decade, we finally realized a historic dream of the 20th century therefore, a vision of a Europe whole and
free and at peace.
In the past five years, it was my friend and predecessor Colin Powell who led the men and women of American diplomacy into the 21st century. He modernized the State Department’s technology and transformed dozens of our facilities abroad. Most importantly, Secretary Powell invested in our
people. He created over 2,000 new positions and hired thousands of new employees and trained them all to be diplomatic leaders of tomorrow.
Now, today, to advance transformational diplomacy all around the world, we in the State Department must again answer a new calling of our time. We must begin to lay the diplomatic foundations to secure a future of freedom for all people. Like the great changes of the past, the new efforts we
undertake today will not be completed quickly. Transforming our diplomacy and transforming the State Department is the work of a generation, but it is urgent work that must begin.
To advance transformational diplomacy, we are and we must change our diplomatic posture. In the 21st century, emerging nations like India and China and Brazil and Egypt and Indonesia and South Africa are increasingly shaping the course of history. At the same time, the new front lines of our
diplomacy are appearing more clearly, in transitional countries of Africa and of Latin America and of the Middle East. Our current global posture does not really reflect that fact. For instance, we have nearly the same number of State Department personnel in Germany, a country of 82 million people
that we have in India, a country of one billion people. It is clear today that America must begin to reposition our diplomatic forces around the world, so over the next few years the United States will begin to shift several hundred of our diplomatic positions to new critical posts for the 21st century. We
will begin this year with a down payment of moving 100 positions from Europe and, yes, from here in Washington, D.C., to countries like China and India and Nigeria and Lebanon, where additional staffing will make an essential difference.
We are making these changes by shifting existing resources to meet our new priorities, but we are also eager to work more closely with Congress to enhance our global strategy with new resources and new positions.
We will also put new emphasis on our regional and transnational strategies. In the 21st century, geographic regions are growing ever more integrated economically, politically and culturally. This creates new opportunities but it also presents new challenges, especially from transnational threats like
terrorism and weapons proliferation and drug smuggling and trafficking in persons and disease.
Building regional partnerships is one foundation today of our counterterrorism strategy. We are empowering countries that have the will to fight terror but need help with the means. And we are joining with key regional countries like Indonesia and Nigeria and Morocco and Pakistan, working together
not only to take the fight to the enemy but also to combat the ideology of hatred that uses terror as a weapon.
We will use a regional approach to tackle disease as well. Rather than station many experts in every embassy, we will now deploy small, agile transnational networks of our diplomats. These rapid response teams will monitor and combat the spread of pandemics across entire continents. We are
adopting a more regional strategy in our public diplomacy as well.
In the Middle East, for example, as you well know, a vast majority of people get their news from a regional media network like Al Jazeera, not from a local newspaper. So our diplomats must tell America’s story not just in translated op-eds, but live on TV in Arabic for a regional audience. To make
this happen, we are creating a regional public diplomacy center. We are forward deploying our best Arabic-speaking diplomats and we are broadly coordinating our public diplomacy strategy both for the region and from the region.
Our third goal is to localize our diplomatic posture. Transformational diplomacy requires us to move our diplomatic presence out of foreign capitals and to spread it more widely across countries. We must work on the front lines of domestic reform as well as in the back rooms of foreign ministries.
There are nearly 200 cities worldwide with over one million people in which the United States has no formal diplomatic presence. This is where the action is today and this is where we must be. To reach citizens in bustling new population centers, we cannot always build new consulates beyond a
nation’s capital.
A newer, more economical idea is what we call an American Presence Post. This idea is simple. One of our best diplomats moves outside the embassy to live and work and represent America in an emerging community of change. We currently operate American Presence Posts in places like Egypt
and Indonesia and we are eager to expand both the size and the scope of this new approach.
Perhaps the newest and most cost effective way to adopt a more local posture is through a Virtual Presence Post. Here one or more of our young officers creates and manages an internet site that is focused on key population centers. This digital meeting room enables foreign citizens, young people
most of all, to engage online with American diplomats who could be hundreds of miles away. This is a great way to connect with millions of new people across Europe and Asia and Latin America.
In today’s world, our diplomats will not only work in different places, they will work in different communities and they will serve in different kinds of conditions, like reconstruction and stabilization missions, where they must partner more directly with the military.
So to advance transformational diplomacy we are empowering our diplomats to work more jointly with our men and women in uniform.
Over the past 15 years, as violent state failure has become a greater global threat, our military has borne a disproportionate share of post-conflict responsibilities because we have not had the standing civilian capability to play our part fully. This was true in Somalia and Haiti, in Bosnia, in Kosovo,
and it is still partially true in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These experiences have shown us the need to enhance our ability to work more effectively at the critical intersections of diplomacy, democracy promotion, economic reconstruction and military security. That is why President Bush created within the State Department the Office of Reconstruction and
Stabilization. Recently, President Bush broadened the authority and mandate for this office and Congress authorized the Pentagon to transfer up to $100 million to State in the event of a post-conflict operation, funds that would empower our reconstruction and stabilization efforts. We have an
expansive vision for this new office, and let there be no doubt, we are committed to realizing it. Should a state fail in the future, we want the men and the women of this office to be able to spring into action quickly. We will look to them to partner immediately with our military, with other federal
agencies and with our international allies, and eventually we envision this office assembling and deploying the kinds of civilians who are essential in post-conflict operations: police officers and judges and electricians and engineers, bankers and economists and legal experts and election monitors.
Our Reconstruction and Stabilization Office must be able to help a failed state to exercise responsible sovereignty and to prevent its territory from becoming a source of global instability, as Afghanistan was in 2001.
The diplomacy of the 21st century requires better “jointness” too between our soldiers and our civilians, and we are taking additional steps to achieve it. We for decades have positions in our Foreign Service called Political Advisors to Military Forces, affectionately called POLADS, in our business.
We station these diplomats where the world of diplomacy intersects the world of military force, but increasingly this intersection is seen in the dusty streets of Fallujah or the tsunami-wrecked coasts of Indonesia. I want American diplomats to eagerly seek our assignments working side-by-side with
our men and women in uniform, whether it is in disaster relief in Pakistan or in stabilization missions in Liberia or fighting the illegal drug trade in Latin America.
Finally, to advance transformational diplomacy, we are preparing our people with new expertise and challenging them with new expectations. I’ve been Secretary of State for almost exactly one year now, and in that time I have become more convinced than ever that we have the finest diplomatic
service in the world. I’ve seen the noble spirit of that service, a service that defines the men and women of our Foreign Service and Civil Service and our Foreign Service Nationals, many of whom are serving in dangerous places far away from their families.
I see in them the desire and the ability to adapt to a changing world and to our changing diplomatic mission. More and more often, over the course of this new century, we will ask the men and women of the State Department to be active in the field. We will need them to engage with private citizens
in emerging regional centers, not just with government officials in their nations’ capitals. We must train record numbers of people to master difficult languages like Arabic and Chinese and Farsi and Urdu.
In addition, to advance in their careers, our Foreign Service Officers must now serve in what we call hardship posts. These are challenging jobs in critical countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and Angola, countries where we are working with foreign citizens in difficult conditions to maintain
security and fight poverty and make democratic reforms. To succeed in these kinds of posts, we will train our diplomats not only as expert analysts of policy but as first-rate administrators of programs, capable of helping foreign citizens to strengthen the rule of law, to start businesses, to improve
health and to reform education.
Ladies and gentlemen, President Bush has outlined the historic calling of our time. We on the right side of freedom’s divide have a responsibility to help all people who find themselves on the wrong side of that divide. The men and women of American diplomacy are being summoned to advance an
exciting new mission. But there is one other great asset that America will bring to this challenge. No, in a day and a time when difference is still a license to kill, America stands as a tremendous example of what can happen with people of diverse backgrounds, ethnic groups, religions all call
themselves American. Because it does not matter whether you are Italian American or African American or Korean American. It does not matter whether you are Muslim or Presbyterian or Jewish or Catholic. What matters is that you are American and you are devoted to an ideal and to a set of
beliefs that unites us.
Ladies and gentlemen, in order for America to fully play its role in the world, it must send out into the world a diplomatic force, a diplomatic corps that reflects that great diversity. It cannot be that the last three Secretaries of State — the daughter of European immigrants, the son of Jamaican
immigrants and a daughter of the American segregated South — would be more diverse than the Foreign Service with which they work. And so I want to make a special appeal to each and every one of you. It’s exciting to be a diplomat these days because it is not just about reporting on countries.
It’s not just influencing governments. It’s being a part of changing people’s lives, whether in our AIDS programs abroad or in our efforts to educate girls in Afghanistan or to help with extremism in the Middle East with good partners like Pakistan and Jordan. Imagine the excitement of the people who
are going to work in Liberia now with the first woman president on the African continent to try and build a Liberia where people can reach their dreams and their future.
But we cannot do it without America’s best and brightest, and America’s best and brightest come in all colors, they come in all religions, they come in all heritages. Our Foreign Service has got to be that way, too.
I sit in an office when I meet with foreign secretaries and foreign ministers from around the world that is a grand office that looks like it’s actually out of the 19th century although it was actually built in 1947, but that’s very American, too. And there’s a portrait of Thomas Jefferson that looks direct at
me when I am speaking to those foreign ministers, and I wonder sometimes, “What would Mr. Jefferson have thought?” What would he have thought about America’s reach and influence in the world? What would he have thought about America’s pursuit of the democratic enterprise on behalf of the
peoples of the world? What would he have thought that an ancestor — that my ancestors, who were three-fifths of a man in his constitution, would produce a Secretary of State who would carry out that mission?
Ladies and gentlemen, America has come a long way and America stands as a symbol but also a reality for all of those who have a long way to go, that democracy is hard and democracy takes time, but democracy is always worth it.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
2006/53
Released on January 18, 2006
Updates | Frequent Questions | Contact Us | Email this Page | Subject Index | Search
The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information
from the U.S. State Department. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an
endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.
About state.gov | Privacy Notice | FOIA | Copyright Information | Other U.S. Government
Information
Models to Examine US Foreign Policy: Realism and Idealism
Realism: The Trump administrations emphasis on “Make America Great Again” is one
interpretation of International Relations (IR) as described by REALISM.
IR is the study of political and economic interactions between states (governments of countries)
and increasingly also with non-state actors (Amnesty International, The Red Cross, Doctors
Without Borders, and Transnational Corporations like Apple and British Petroleum, and
increasingly after 9/11 terrorist organizations like al-Gaeda). Realism is one of the major
theories attempting to explain those political and economic relations.
The basic focus of realism is the ability of a given government to protect its country and project
power through foreign policies abroad in an attempt to influence the domestic and foreign
policies of other governments. Power, then is a central focus of realism. Power is basically the
capability of a government to make another government do something it would not otherwise
do or to stop it from doing something it wants to do.
So, we need to recognize that realists believe that international relations is system
characterized by anarchy. Anarchy presents itself as a system where all the actors have some
capability to make up the rules of international relations. It is the powerful governments that
have the ability to control IR through the use of power. Other governments bend to the will of
the powerful. Power is described in several ways: Most often power is affixed to military
might. This is a tangible ability to influence other governments either by threat of the use of
force or offering protection to another government who is being confronted by an aggressor.
While military power is not the only avenue to power on the international stage, realists tend
to place it as the number one characteristic. Economic capacity is another measurement of
power. Intangible characteristics of power include things like the national will and popular
support for the government and its use of power.
Realists make a number of assumptions about IR:
Humans by nature are interested principally in self-preservation. They are selfish. We don’t do
things without some expectation of getting something in return.
IR is characterized as a system of anarchy. The IR system has no central power capable of
controlling authority. In the anarchy of IR anything goes unless another government is
powerful enough to stop you. It is a dog-eat-dog world where “might makes right.”
Political relations tends to be focused on “Transactional Politics” where no act is done on any
basis other than what is in the best interest of the government. In this sense the ends justify
the means. Anything goes. Morality is to be treated as suspect. Realists are skeptical of
countries claiming to act out of good will or from an ethical basis
The most important international actors are governments/states of countries.
Conflict is the natural state of international relations.
Power is not distributed equitably. Some countries are more powerful than others.
Governments act in “rational ways.” This means that they act in ways that support their selfinterest and the survival of their country.
The only check to a state’s power is another state or group of states.
The Balance of Power: In a world characterized by anarchy realists believe that excesses or
abuses of power will be curbed by power balancing power. For every strong country there is a
counterbalance coming from another country or a coalition of countries. This creates
equilibrium, but not a sense of balance. There is always a potential for conflict.
Idealism:
Idealism is an approach to IR that seeks to advance ideals or moral and ethical goals. An
example of these ideals is human rights. Idealism sees human rights as a universal set of rights
for all humans regardless of what country they reside in. This is one of the points to the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Idealism sees the anarchic nature of
international relations as antithetical to human progress. And, idealism argues that human
beings have it within their power to change inequities both internal to a given country and
globally for all human beings.
Idealism rests on a set of assumptions:
Political and Economic power can be used for the benefit of all humanity.
All humans desire the same things in terms of security, welfare, recognition and respect.
International anarchy can be transcended and a more harmonious international system can be
constructed.
A global referee can be empowered to act as a centralized forum for countries to communicate,
collaborate and reduce tensions. Governments of countries will follow the “rules of the game”
established by this entity. This is the hope for the United Nations when it was created.
Political interactions need not be transactional. They can be transformational, and for the
benefit of all without falling back on a zero sum -power relations where there are winners and
losers, and those who win do so at the expense of the losers- game of international relations.
Idealists see realists as supporting a corrupt international system that benefits the few on the
backs of the many. They believe that the disparity between the developed countries who are
comparatively rich and wealthy and powerful and the underdeveloped countries as needlessly
creating the worst of all possible worlds for the poor.
A international system can be created of collective security where diplomacy is more important
than brute force.
All countries can make a contribution to the well-being of all humanity
Idealists argue that embedded in the political culture of many countries are a set of common
core values that are fundamentally the same. Those values, like the American values of
freedom, justice, liberty and equality should be promoted in the foreign relations of countries
and not used as empty platitudes.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.