Table of Content

Contents Page No
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

01. About world peace 1
CHAPTER TWO
Introduction of the Study

01. What Is Americas Role in the World? 2
02. Is the most dangerous country in the world the United States of America? 2
CHAPTER THREE
Analysis and Discussion

01. Foreign policy of the USA 4
02. The Iraq war 4
03. The Afghanistan war 4-8
04. The cold war 8-10
05. Syria crisis and Americas involvement 11
CHAPTER FOUR
Conclusion

01. Conclusion 12

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
01. Introduction:
World peace is an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations and/or
people. World peace is an idea of planetary non-violence by which nations willingly cooperate,
either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance that prevents warfare. The term is
sometimes used to refer to a cessation of all hostility amongst all humanity.
For example, World Peace could be crossing boundaries via human
rights, technology, education, engineering, medicine, diplomats and/or an end to all forms of
fighting. Since 1945, the United Nations and the 5 permanent members of its Security Council
(the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK) have worked to resolve conflicts without war or
declarations of war. However, nations have entered numerous military conflicts since that time.
When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted
with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. We cannot recall a single day
without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is
clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad
news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive
and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.

It is ironic that the more serious problems come from the more industrially advanced societies.
Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems
remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have
fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about
the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we
have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering.

We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and
development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the
future of humanity. We are not at all against science and technology - they have contributed
immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and
to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to
science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge
and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.



CHAPTER TWO
Introduction of the Study

01. What Is Americas Role in the World?

The success of the American experiment in self-government is a result of its founding principles,
set forth in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the United States Constitution. The
universal and permanent truths of human equality and liberty are preserved in America by the
rule of law, and are reflected in its institutions and cherished by its people. Does Americas
dedication to these exceptional principles give it a special role to play in the world?

From the beginning, the purpose of the United States foreign policy has been to defend the
American constitutional system and the common interests of the American people. The U.S. has
thus been committed to providing for its common defense, protecting the freedom of its
commerce, and seeking peaceful relations with other nations. The most important goal of
American foreign policy continues to be defending the independence of the United States, so that
America can govern itself according to its principles and pursue its national interests.
At the same time, the Founders were keenly aware of the universal significance of Americas
principles, and of Americas unique responsibility for upholding and advancing these principles.
As Thomas Paine reminded patriots everywhere during the trying times of Americas struggle
for independence, The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. The
Founders believed that the idea of human liberty and, therefore, the inherent right of self-
government, were applicable not only to Americans, but to all people everywhere.
The Declaration of Independence states that all mankind is endowed with the same unalienable
rights, and that to secure those rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed. The American Founders spoke of universal truths and
created a powerful model of liberty for the whole world. They understood that Americas
commitment to its principlesin both domestic and foreign policyhas profound consequences
for the cause of liberty everywhere.
As George Washington observed, the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of
the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on
the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

The American experiment was important partly because it was an example to oppressed people
around the world. After touring the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville noted in 1835 that the
principal instrument of American foreign policy is freedom. He meant that, in the United
States, diplomacy is not just something the government does. When American citizens proclaim
their faith in their principles and live them at home, they are helping to make their nations
foreign policy, because their words and actions are a lesson for the world.


02. Is the most dangerous country in the world the United States of America?
In their annual End of Year poll, researchers for WIN and Gallup International surveyed more
than 66,000 people across 65 nations and found that 24 percent of all respondents answered that
the United States is the greatest threat to peace in the world today. Pakistan and China fell
significantly behind the United States on the poll, with 8 and 6 percent, respectively.
Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea all tied for fourth place with 4 percent.
Much of the bitterness toward America comes from Muslim Middle Eastern and North African
nations, all located in a region most likely to be affected by American military actions over the
past decade. Forty-four percent of Pakistani respondents, for instance, voted America as the most
dangerous nation, despite Pakistans acceptance of U.S. foreign aid. The Chinese and Russians
rated the United States as dangerous even more than Pakistanis did, at 54 and 49 percent,
respectively.
However, a plurality of people polled in several officially American-allied nations also rated the
United States as dangerous. Thirty-seven percent of Mexicans and 17 percent of Canadians view
their neighboring country with suspicion on the world stage. A surprising 13 percent of
American respondents rated their own nation the biggest threat to world peace as well.
While poll respondents seem anxious about the United States role in world affairs, many of
them would have no problems moving to America if they could. The United States topped
WIN/Gallups list of top countries people would move to with 9 percent of the vote. Canada and
Australia came in second with 7 percent apiece, while 38 percent said they were happy exactly
where they are.
Overall, responders seemed remarkably optimistic about their own futures, despite any
misgivings about the United States. Nearly 50 percent of responders say that 2014 will be better
than 2013, the first time since 1990 that people thought a better year was on the way.
The US has been voted as the most significant threat to world peace in a survey across 68
different countries. Anti-American sentiment was not only recorded in antagonistic countries, but
also in many allied NATO partners like Turkey and Greece.
CHAPTER THREE
Analysis and Discussion
01. Foreign policy of the USA:

The Founders believed that Americas role in the world would be limited by constitutional
government. It would also be inspired by a sense of justice. That was why George Washington
recommended a foreign policy of independence and strength, a policy that would allow America
to choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, by
emphasizing the importance of both interests and justice, Washington recognized that there are
no easy answers to the hard questions of foreign policy. A policy based only on interests would
do violence to Americas ideals, while a policy based only on ideals would ignore the realities of
the world. Therefore, the Founders sought to apply Americas principles, which define its sense
of justice, to the circumstances of the day. This prudent approach is essential to securing the
blessings of liberty for the American people in a complex and sometimes hostile world.

In this dangerous world, the United States was not founded to be a solitary fortress or to remain
isolated from world affairs. When Washington noted Americas detached and distant position,
he was acknowledging a geographical reality, not defining a foreign policy principle. Americas
early foreign policies were not inherently isolationist or non-interventionist; they were prudent
actions shaped by the need to preserve Americas republican self-government.




02. Iraq war:
Prior to invading Iraq in March of 2003, the UN Security Council had passed a resolution
requiring Iraq to give their full cooperation to UN weapon inspectors, who would be
investigating claims that Iraq still housed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Though the UN
Monitoring Verifications and Inspection Commission did not uncover any hidden WMD, they
were unable to verify the accuracy of a declaration by Iraq as far as what specific weapons they
possessed. It was determined by the survey group that Iraq had discontinued both their chemical
and biological programs ten years earlier, but it was the intention of Iraq to resume production
should the sanctions be lifted.
During this time, some US officials accused Saddam Hussein, then president of Iraq, of
harboring and giving support to the al-Queda. Additional accusations stated Iraq was financially
supporting the families of Palestinian bombers. Four days prior to the attack, the US instructed
the inspectors work unfinished to leave Iraq.

On March 20, 2003, a United States coalition entered into Iraq launching a surprise attack
without first declaring war. The invasion was comprised of 250,000 US military troops, with
support from an estimated 45,000 British forces, close to 2,000 Australian forces and about 200
Polish forces.
By May 1
st
of that same year, President Bush declared the invasion a success. He stood on the
deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and announced that major combat operations had ceased and
the US, along with her allies, was successful in removing an ally of al Qaida. Despite the
encouraging news, fighting continued within various pockets of resistance and Saddam Hussein
still remained at large. President Bush gave no specific date for withdrawal of US troops.

Iraq 2005 2008
By 2005, the US was assisting with a sequence of elections. The Iraqis voted along cultural and
sectarian lines, which further reinforced the widening societal differences that had already
occurred under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration was greatly
disappointed though when the Iraqis votes were overwhelmingly conservative and religious. As
a result, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who was Iraqis most powerful Shiite cleric, won the
majority of votes in both elections and took control of the government. This further angered the
Sunni Arab insurgency and created new concerns for the US government.
From the beginning, the war in Iraq had a devastating effect over much of the Middle East.
Some felt Iran gained the most from this situation, being ruled by Shiite Persians and having a
close connection with Iraqs Shiite leaders. During the summer of 2007, violence erupted in Iraq
both in the central and western regions, which included Baghdad. Further escalation of
fighting continued and resulted in President Bushs decision to increase the number of troops in
Iraq.
In June of the following summer, officials from the US Department of Defense felt both security
as well as economic indicators began to display signs of improvement. They listed the gains as
significant, but fragile. Public opinion favored withdrawal of troops once the forces in Iraq
began to take control and member nations of the Coalition began withdrawing their troops. By
late 2008, both the US and Iraqi governments accepted the terms of the Status of Forces
Agreement, which was to remain in effect until January 1, 2012. Iraqs Parliament also set forth
a Strategic Framework Agreement with the United States showing intent to ensure cooperation in
constitutional rights, education, energy development and a number of other areas.

03. The Afghanistan war:
The attacks of September 11, 2001 surprised many Americans; the decision a month later to
wage a war in Afghanistan, to end the ability of the government to offer safe haven to Al Qaeda,
may have seemed equally surprising.
1979: Soviet Forces Enter Afghanistan
Many would argue that the story of how 9/11 came about goes back, at least, to 1979 when the
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, with which it shares a border.
Afghanistan had experienced several coups since 1973, when the Afghan monarchy was
overthrown by Daud Khan, who was sympathetic to Soviet overtures.
Subsequent coups reflected struggles within Afghanistan among factions with different ideas
about how Afghanistan should be governed and whether it should be communist, and with
degrees warmth toward the Soviet Union. The Soviets intervened following the overthrow of a
pro-communist leader. In late December 1979, after several months of evident military
preparation, they invaded Afganistan.
At that time, the Soviet Union and the United States were engaged in the Cold War, a global
competition for the fealty of other nations. The United States was, thus, deeply interested in
whether the Soviet Union would succeed in establishing a communist government loyal to
Moscow in Afghanistan. In order to forestall that possibility, the United States began funding
insurgent forces to oppose the Soviets.
1979-1989: Afghan Mujahideen Battle the Soviets
The U.S.-funded Afghan insurgents were called mujahideen, an Arabic word that means
"strugglers" or "strivers." The word has its orgins in Islam, and is related to the word jihad, but in
the context of the Afghan war, it may be best understood as referring to "resistance."
The mujahideen were organized into different political parties, and armed and supported by
different countries, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as well as the United States, and they
gained significantly in power and money during the course of the Afghan-Soviet war.
The legendary fierceness of the mujahideen fighters, their stringent, extreme version of Islam
and their causeexpelling the Soviet foreigners drew interest and support from Arab Muslims
seeking an opportunity to experience, and experiment with, waging jihad.
Among those drawn to Afghanistan were a wealthy, ambitious, and pious young Saudi
named Osama bin Laden and the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization, Ayman Al
Zawahiri.
1980s: Osama bin Laden Recruits Arabs for Jihad in Afghanistan
The idea that the 9/11 attacks have their roots in the Soviet-Afghan war comes from bin Laden's
role in it. During much of the war he, and Ayman Al Zawahiri, the Egyptian head of Islamic
Jihad, an Egyptian group, lived in neighboring Pakistan. There, they cultivated Arab recruits to
fight with the Afghan mujahideen. This, loosely, was the beginning of the network of roving
jihadists that would become Al Qaeda later.
It was also in this period that bin Laden's ideology, goals and the role of jihad within them
developed.
1996: Taliban Take over Kabul, and End Mujahideen Rule
By 1989, the mujahideen had driven the Soviets from Afghanistan, and three years later, in 1992,
they managed to wrest control of the government in Kabul from the Marxist president,
Muhammad Najibullah.
Severe infighting among the mujahideen factions continued, however, under the presidency of
mujahid leader Burhanuddin Rabbani. Their war against each other devastated Kabul: tens of
thousands of civilians lost their lives, and infrastructure was destroyed by rocket fire.
This chaos, and the exhaustion of the Afghans, permitted the Taliban to gain power. Cultivated
by Pakistan, the Taliban emerged first in Kandahar, gained control of Kabul in 1996 and
controlled most of the entire country by 1998. Their extremely severe laws based on retrograde
interpretations of the Quran, and absolute disregard for human rights, were repugnant to the
world community.
04. The cold war:
Why did the Soviets establish control over most of Eastern Europe at the end of World
War II?
Soviet armies occupied Eastern Europe as they pursued the defeated German forces at the end of
World War II. The insistence upon establishing governments hand-picked by the Russians in
those areas, and especially in Poland, was one of the reasons for the development of the Cold
War.


What East European communist nation remained free from Soviet control after World
War II?
Yugoslavia was not occupied by Soviet armies at the end of World War II. Its government
under Tito, although sharing the Communist ideology, was not under Soviet control. It was an
independent state, and was successful in preventing Stalin from subverting it in 1949.
What changes, if any, occurred in Russia after Khrushchev came to power?
Khrushchev succeeded to power in Russia following the death of Stalin in 1953. There was a
significant easing of the Stalinist terror, and Khrushchev denounced Stalin for his crimes at a
party congress in 1956.
Hopes arose in Eastern Europe that the Soviets might allow greater political autonomy, but the
attempt to establish a more liberal regime in Hungary was crushed by Soviet tanks. While the
Soviet Empire had become less tyrannical, its grip on the eastern European neighbors was not to
be lessened.
During the period 1945-1949, the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union
rapidly go down. A perceived threat by Communist guerillas in Greece, and Soviet pressure upon
Turkey motivated U.S. aid to Greece and Turkey. In 1947, the Truman Doctrine called for
containment of "Communist" threats around the globe, a grandiose goal which reached far
beyond the immediate issues at stake.
Also, in 1947, the United States proposed the Marshall Plan, the European Recovery Program,
a program of economic aid to war-torn Europe. The Soviet Union and its satellites did not
participate in the belief that it was a vehicle to extend American influence. Indeed, it probably
wouls have done so. But it was also a far-sighted program to avoid the mistakes made after
World War I and to bring about rapid recovery of the European economy. This ensured the
stability of governments in Italy and France, where large Communist parties were within reach
of power. It also created a stark contrast between the recovering economies of Western Europe
and the depressed economies of Eastern Europe. Most importantly, it brought about a rapid
return to prosperity in Western Europe and built the foundations for a booming Atlantic economy
in the next two decades. It also set the stage for the establishment of the European Common
Market, begun in
the 1950,s.
A "brain drain" from eastern to western Germany through Berlin led to the Berlin blockade
and the Berlin airlift, a confrontation between east and west which brought the two sides to the
brink of military conflict and led to the re-assignment of U.S. troops to west Germany.
By 1948, the United States was the leader of a coalition of western nations, opposed to the
Soviet Union, and forming a military alliance. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO,
committed the United States to go to war if any of the member nations were attacked. The lines
of the Cold War were now drawn.


How did the Cold War develop in Asia?
A quite separate development in Asia, a civil war between the nationalist and communist
Chinese, resulted in a communist victory in 1949. This brought to power a government which
effectively unified China and restored it to a position of complete independence after a century
of European colonial domination.
Because the United States had, by 1949, defined all Communist governments as the enemy,
the relations between China and the U.S. quickly deteriorated. The United States intervened in
the Chinese civil war by interposing a U.S. fleet in the Taiwan straits, thus protecting the
Nationalist Chinese, who had fled to the island, from invasion by the mainland Chinese.
At the end of World War II, the Korean peninsula was divided at the 38th parallel between
United States military forces in the south and Soviet forces in the north. Both powers supported
client states in their respective areas, and both of these client states sought to unite Korea under
their auspices. This led to the outbreak of war in June, 1950. Because the United States had not
given extensive military aid to South Korea, and the Soviets had done so in the north, North
Korea had the advantage and invaded the south.

The United States intervened with it own forces and reversed the tide of war. The approach of
U.S. military forces to the Yalu River border with China provoked Chinese involvement. The
war dragged on between the United States and China for three years. President Truman limited
the war to the Korean peninsula, where immense destruction took place. The fighting ended with
a cease fire in place, but no permanent peace treaty. The effect of the war was to create a heavily
fortified border zone still closely guarded by both sides through the end of the twentieth century.
The war greatly intensified the tension in the Cold War, accelerated the arms race ,and led to a
change in U.S. policy towards Vietnam.

What was the principal cause for U.S. involvement in Vietnam?
The Vietnamese were engaged in a struggle for independence from France in the years 1946-
1954. The United States began to give extensive aid to the French in 1950, when, after the
outbreak of the Korean War and the end of the Chinese civil war, American leaders believed that
Communism was spreading throughout Asia. Thus, U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a direct
result of the Cold War.
Because the Vietnam War was a struggle for independence by the Vietnamese from their
former colonial status, and the U.S. replaced the French after France was defeated in 1954, the
war was a struggle of an empire, the United States, against an emerging nation-state.
The Cold War led the United States, through its far-flung overseas commitments, to become
the core of an empire. Liberal values, which were reflected in the domestic politics of the United
States, were not extended overseas. The Cold War accentuated that trend. While the American
people knew their own traditions at home, their nationalist bias
blinded them to the contradictions in their overseas actions.

How have U.S. and Soviet military expenditures during the Cold War affected their
national economies?
Military expenditures in the former Soviet Union were a great burden on the Soviet economy,
draining resources that might otherwise have been available to improve the economic
circumstances of the people. While Russia's centralized economy could provide the organization
for an effective military establishment, it could not efficiently manage the
complex distribution system of a consumer-based society. The Soviet Union was a great military
power, but its people lived in disadvantaged circumstances throughout the Cold War.
Military expenditures in the United States also drained resources and talent that would
otherwise have been available to the private economy. By the 1970,s, the United States, once the
dominant economy in the world, had fallen behind Japan and West Germany in the competition
for high quality consumer goods. Two decades of negative balances of trade caused the United
States to become the largest debtor nation in the world. The pre-occupation with the military race
against the Soviet Union is, in part, the reason.


How did the Cold War come to an end?
During the 1970's and early 1980's, the Soviet economy was deteriorating under the cumulative
effects of a centralized bureaucratic system, the burdens of an increasingly costly arms race, and
a failed war in Afghanistan. A new generation of leadership came to power in 1985 in the person
of Gorbachev. He was determined to end the Cold War and to bring economic and political
reform to the Soviet Union. He initiated dramatic new agreements with the United States,
involving unilateral concessions in the armaments race. He also brought an end to Soviet support
of client governments in Eastern Europe and in Cuba. He relaxed the police state repression in
the Soviet empire and took steps to introduce a democratic political process.
These initiatives rapidly improved relations with the United States and brought an end to the
Cold War. What Gorbachev had not anticipated, however, was that, without the domination of
the police and a monopoly of power in the hands of the Communist Party, the Soviet empire
would collapse into 16 different national parts. Nationalism, always a potent force in the modern
world, brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union by 1991.

05. Syria crisis and Americas involvement:
As the Obama administration struggles to convince lawmakers of the case for intervention in
Syria, there were signs today that American involvement in the civil war there, if it happens,
might be greater in scale than was first anticipated.
US officials are said to be studying a plan to increase support for rebels fighting to remove the
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power. The new plan would see the military send its own
trainers to bolster the capabilities of the rebels, something they have resisted in the past.
The CIA has been training groups of rebels in Jordan. But the involvement of the military could
see the number of rebels being trained spiral from dozens to hundreds or even thousands,
according to the Associated Press.
The news that the US may offer greater support to the rebels follows a report in the New York
Times that President Obama had asked his military commanders to draw up an expanded list of
targets following intelligence that the Assad regime was moving its military assets in anticipation
of a US strike. That prompted questions for Mr Obama at the G20 summit. When asked whether
his administration was in danger of mission creep, the President, who will reiterate his case for
action during a televised address on Tuesday, said the report was inaccurate.
The prospect of greater US engagement in training the rebels follows pressure from Republican
hawks in Congress who want the administration to do more than just target the Assad regimes
chemical weapons capabilities. In the Senate, John McCain pushed for tougher language in the
resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee, adding a policy statement that the US
should use its resources to turn the tide in favor of the rebels.
The Obama administration continued to press Congress to authorize military action in Syria
yesterday, with Secretary of State John Kerry publicly warning that the cost of inaction here are
greater than the costs of action, amid signs that the US could be drawn deeper into the conflict
than initially suggested.
Mindful of the shadow of the Iraq war, and drawing on his own experience of conflict in
Vietnam, Mr Kerry said that if another Vietnam or another Iraq were on the table in the
Situation Room, I wouldnt be sitting at the witness table before Congress advocating for
action.
Meanwhile, in a sign of the public opposition to the debate in Washington, Senator McCain, a
vocal proponent of action to strengthen the rebels, came face to face with angry constituents at a
town hall meeting in Arizona on Thursday. You dont respect our view! We didnt send you to
get war for us, we sent you to stop the war, one man in the audience yelled, according to
AZcentral.com.















Conclusion:
To alter the American mindset would mean accepting the traumatic truth that the U.S., the
worlds dominant power for more than half a century, has proved itself incapable of pursuing
intelligently what should be the primary aim of foreign policy peace.
On the contrary, the result of Americas mission to save the world has been to make it a more
dangerous place for each and every one of us. Meanwhile, because of its much-boasted special
relationship, the UK is caught by the ricochet.
Over seven decades, the consequences of expanded, unquestioning British support for whatever
Washington does have often been disastrous.
Since 2001, we have been dragged into the front line of a war on terror which has served only as
a recruiting sergeant for jihadists from all parts of Islam. There are few countries more given to
the glorification of violence.
The American folk hero is the self-satisfied gunman. Let loose in the wider world, he (America)
is a threat to peace. It is our duty to warn him (America) off this course, not trail along in his
(America) wake.














References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
http://www.ted.com
http://americanhumanist.org
http://www.heritage.org