-
karthikpandian19
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
- Thanked: 165 times
- Followed by:70 members
Between the beginning of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, United States foreign policy was governed by one overriding principle: the country must defend itself against "any perceived menace" to national security. The Soviet Union was, from the end of World War II until its demise, perceived to be just that menace.
The end of the Cold War, however, along with a belated recognition of the limitations of American resources, has brought about a new scenario. No longer able to rely upon the dictates of one overriding policy, the government suddenly finds itself faced with decisions that require either a subtle reading of American ideals or the reconciliation of seemingly contradictory objectives. For example, in the case of the civil war and apparent genocide in Bosnia, which ideal--non-intervention in national self-determination, or advocacy of human rights--should the United States pursue? To what degree does our support for the authority of the United Nations tie the nation's hands? In terms of world economics, should the United States support universal free trade, once viewed as an extremely effective weapon against the Soviets, even though the United States, with its weakened economy, may not ably compete on such a playing field? The only certainty is that the future holds difficult and potentially controversial choices for United States policy makers.
It can be inferred from the passage that United States foreign policy makers considered their pursuit of containment of the Soviet Union justified by
the possible threat posed to the safety of the United States
evidence of a Soviet weapons build up
the end of the Cold War and limits of United States resources
the approval of that policy by the United Nations Security Council
the Soviet policy of supporting oppressive, undemocratic governments
The end of the Cold War, however, along with a belated recognition of the limitations of American resources, has brought about a new scenario. No longer able to rely upon the dictates of one overriding policy, the government suddenly finds itself faced with decisions that require either a subtle reading of American ideals or the reconciliation of seemingly contradictory objectives. For example, in the case of the civil war and apparent genocide in Bosnia, which ideal--non-intervention in national self-determination, or advocacy of human rights--should the United States pursue? To what degree does our support for the authority of the United Nations tie the nation's hands? In terms of world economics, should the United States support universal free trade, once viewed as an extremely effective weapon against the Soviets, even though the United States, with its weakened economy, may not ably compete on such a playing field? The only certainty is that the future holds difficult and potentially controversial choices for United States policy makers.
It can be inferred from the passage that United States foreign policy makers considered their pursuit of containment of the Soviet Union justified by
the possible threat posed to the safety of the United States
evidence of a Soviet weapons build up
the end of the Cold War and limits of United States resources
the approval of that policy by the United Nations Security Council
the Soviet policy of supporting oppressive, undemocratic governments
