After gaining independence from Britain, U.S. foreign policy and relations were guided primarily by the idea of preventing the United States from entering into alliances that they may not be so easily able to exit from. The new nation just removed the yoke of English colonialism that tethered it to the European continent and to get entangled once again in European affairs would only invite potential trouble on its shores. In his 1796 farewell address, Washington declared the “great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible” (Washington, p. 26). Thomas Jefferson also argued the course toward isolationism and neutrality as the best option saying “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none” (United States Department of State Office of the Historian, n.d.). For the U.S., economic trade was the only real priority in dealing with foreign states, yet foreign policy was not fully absent in American governance. The young republic by 1792 had established sixteen diplomatic missions throughout the European continent that existed not only as a medium for communications but also to collect intelligence on the activities in those states. In addition, the Monroe Doctrine (1823) was one of the first important foreign policy positions that projected U.S. influence across the Atlantic and gave notice to European nations that further colonization in the Western Hemisphere was no longer welcome and where we established hemispheric hegemony. Fast-forwarding to the 20th century, our pivotal role in both World Wars firmly established us as the leader of democratic nations and a role model which was prophesized on us through the sermon John Winthrop made some 300 years earlier. Yet such responsibilities in leadership cannot come without the practice of international security, diplomacy, statecraft, and projection of U.S. foreign policy globally.
Foreign policy doesn’t exist merely on a single plane, but is multi-dimensional and multi-faceted. At the same time, varied global perspectives based on cultural and historical experience, geography, and resources (or lack thereof) provide a cacophony of voices all fighting to be heard over all others. Perspective and appreciation of alternate views count in crafting effective foreign policy and strategy as well as projecting U.S. influence to establish international security without sacrificing our own visions and ideals of creating a safer world with America at the helm. But it also requires knowledge in historical background, theories of causation, political philosophy, and innovative thought. The International Security Studies Master’s program at the University of Arizona through the courses offered and by the faculty that facilitated each course provided all the requisite needs mentioned above to make its participants fully appreciate and come away with a richer understanding of the importance of international security and U.S. foreign policy to project its core tenets.
Within the program I found six courses to be the most fundamental and impactful to not only my broad understanding of international security but also the foundations on which I hope to build a career of international relations upon. These six courses are as follows, POL 520A - How Terrorism Ends (Dr. Alex Braithwaite), POL 567A - Emerging Powers in the Global System and POL 588A - Politics of Energy Security (both facilitated by Dr. Mikhail Beznosov), POL 545A - Security in New Democracies (Dr. Jennifer Cyr), POL 523A - Immigration and Border Security (Dr. Lisa Sanchez), and POL 551 - Russian Foreign and Security Policy (Dr. Pat Willerton).
The American diplomat and former President at the Council Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, keenly noted that foreign policy begins at home; the logic of this statement cannot be overstated. If foreign policy does begin at home, its first physical manifestation to the outside world begins at our nation’s borders. The course Immigration and Border Security (POL 523A) allowed me to look beyond my perspective of immigration from this side of the U.S. border and to see immigration as a human experience from the eyes of those coming to the United States to seek a better life. Immigration appears to be one of the most difficult foreign and domestic policy issues in American government today, and as such the course was the most challenging in the program as I had to put aside many feelings on my own views on illegal immigration and focus on perspective and build pragmatic arguments for all three paper submissions. What I found most compelling in seeking to understand immigration from a foreign policy perspective were the underlying push and pull factors for people seeking a new life in the United States. While I produced a work that argued for the addition of two particular social group (PSG) additions to be included as grounds for asylum seekers (victims of domestic violence and youth facing forced gang recruitment in their respective countries) I also argued for more control on our nation’s borders by seeking cooperative arrangements with Mexico to take in more migrants from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Though every person has the right to migrate to find a better life or flee persecution from their own country, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (2019) also points out that “international refugee law does not confer upon refugees the right to choose their country of asylum (nor) authorize their irregular movement between successive countries solely in order to benefit from more favourable conditions" (p. 2). While immigration has been crucial to establishing the United States as a global power in the past, control of who comes over the border today must be better established if we are to maintain an orderly society at home and more effectively project our foreign policy abroad.
For the United States to claim that they are energy independent is enough of a misleading statement that would likely do more harm than good to its foreign policy and energy security constructs. Yet during the Trump presidency, similar statements were made proclaiming such declarations. Even though 2020 was the year the United States finally produced more barrels of oil per day than barrels consumed, we still imported on average 7.86 million barrels of oil per day (United States Energy Information Administration, 2023) to maintain our economic edge as a global leader. In POL 588A, the Politics of Energy Security, it was shown that energy independence is not the same as energy security. According to Shaffer (2011) “access to energy is a necessary element of a state’s security (and) an integrated element of foreign and national security policies (p. 91). Fossil energy is a finite commodity and one day in the future U.S. reserves will dry up and we will have to start a new quest for energy security. To address energy security, we must look at it through three lenses; the energy desired must be accessible, affordable, and adequate. Thus, we see the salience in Schaffer’s statement. So where can the United States find solace in energy security abroad or within its own borders? In one work, I argue that Central Asia is a region of the world that can provide such energy security, but the United States will have to contend with the region’s former overseers in Russia and a rising China to the east for influence; thus, foreign policy and diplomacy will play a vital role if the U.S. is to make any headway in moving Central Asian energy westward. A second region that will produce many unknowns in energy security is the Arctic. As one of the eight members of the Arctic Council, the U.S. plays a pivotal role in access and exploitation of the Arctic that will shape the future of not only energy supply and security but also geopolitics and climatic conditions that may speed up global warming producing irreversible effects that we may not easily recover from. I argue that though we have potentially vast reserves of oil and gas lying just under the surface of our Exclusive Economic Zone we need not tap and consume it immediately but use it responsibly to not only further ensure energy security in the future but also to ensure the preservation of the environmentally fragile Arctic region.
Another player in the Arctic, but not necessarily a littoral Arctic state, is China. This rising power was one of the states that was in focus in POL 567A, Emerging Powers in the Global System. Invited to become part of the global economic system through WTO membership in 2001, China has taken advantage of the accessibility of world markets and has been nothing less than an economic success story, yet China is using its new found fortunes and influence to find a following to challenge and potentially change the U.S. led world order that has been in play since the End of WWII and further solidified at the end of the Cold War. However, China is not the only player in this geopolitical game; the rest of the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, and South America) along with other states that have regional aspirations like Turkey and Mexico have changed the geopolitical map into a mosaic of sorts in where they are seeking some type of regional hegemony to influence or control the region in which they exist in. Is there enough room for these rising powers to exist in a multipolar and fractional world or will bordering spheres of influence overlap and geopolitical tensions rise to produce a new round of conflicts and wars that pull nations from far away into the fray? Such contestation of states may bring an end to the idea of Westphalian sovereignty that has been in place for the past 375 years; but it is important to note that since recorded history, empires and powerful civilizations have seemingly reached an apex and then fell. For the United States to avoid such a narrative it must, 1) learn to keep its influence alive and well in the global commons and 2) it must not try to forcefully suppress states in their aspirations but to strategically work with them to practice sovereign obligation to ensure those aspirations do not disrupt the order that could potentially cause more conflict on the world stage. My works in the course focused on the argument that aspiring states like Turkey and Mexico may prove to be perplexing problems if we don’t try to understand their aspirations and may cause more harm than good if we seek to fully suppress these ambitions and not help them reach a higher level of prosperity.
State sovereignty, though a widely held philosophical practice used to maintain the world order, is not theoretically absolute in its right. If a state fails in its sovereign obligation to control affairs within its borders, for example, providing safe haven for terrorist networks to operate out of, then counterterrorism efforts even within another state’s sovereign borders are deemed an acceptable practice to protect a target state’s foreign and domestic policy objectives. The United States has been no stranger to this foreign policy response from its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and its efforts in partnerships in eradicating terror networks globally. In POL 520A - How Terrorism Ends, my studies guided me on a focus of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade in a three-part series concerning their background and purpose, Israeli counterterrorism efforts against the group, and a two-prong approach recommendation to countering future threats and to facilitate their demise. Despite several ways terrorism can end (killing the main leaders, policing, splintering, political entry, or victory) many believe that terrorism will never go away. Again, perspective plays a central role here, it is often heard that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; a new “end” may be needed to show those who believe that these groups are fighting for them are only silencing them. When terrorists lose the support and sympathy of the people they are supposedly “fighting for” then their real raison d'être as illegitimate actors become exposed and a real path to diplomacy can begin.
As for states that enter the global commons with the ambition to join the global order and become democratic in its ideology and practice, how does U.S. foreign policy and international security ensure that these states become successful in their endeavors? In POL 545A – Security in New Democracies, the focus was on these new fledgling states that either overthrew their authoritarian regimes or have removed the yoke of their colonial past and started on the path of democratic transition. What many states found was that democratic transition is not that easy. In addition, states exhibit many shades of democracy ranging from liberal to illiberal and all types in between; what classifies them all together as democratic are the particular elements each state adopts that allows the people some degree of agency in their participation in government. What I found salient in this course is the role of these people - their role in civil-military relations, their role in agency, and most importantly, the role in their own future ultimately guides their path. One work focused on civil-military relations in democratic states while another focused on the difficult transition one former Communist state, Albania, is having despite being a NATO member but quite possibly stalling its membership into the EU by not fully satisfying the Copenhagen criteria requirements for formal acceptance into the union.
While Albania, a former ally of the Soviet Union through the Warsaw Pact, is navigating its way to democracy under the auspices of NATO protection, other former Warsaw Pact states and Soviet republics appear to still be in the shadow of a revanchist Russian state that seeks hegemony in its near abroad. In POL 551 - Russian Foreign and Security Policy, a uniquely Russian perspective sought to show how Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, perceives the world around them and how this perception is projected in geopolitics and dealings with not only the West, but China and other rising powers. Russia’s 1,300-year history in addressing its own security and existence combined with a new Russian identity after shedding its Soviet past has created a complex enigma for American foreign policy practitioners and experts. My works in the course focused on Putin’s rationales in his invasion of Ukraine based on prior U.S. foreign policy, particularly through a NATO lens and through that same NATO lens, crafting a new foreign policy response to Putin’s Russia. Lastly, I point out one of the faults of U.S. foreign policy toward Russia is based on the concept of paradigm blindness and the failure to seek out a new Russian perspective when crafting policy responses by still perceiving today’s Russia in its Soviet past.
Each course mentioned here I believe in some way finds connections with each other. While I have attempted to create a linear connection with each of the courses I can also find multiple connections among them as well as the courses not mentioned here that I have taken in the ISS Program along with those offered that I did not register for. In looking back at my time in the program I have come to understand that crafting and projecting U.S. foreign policy beyond our shores is a rather complex task, but it does not have to be enigmatic in its development. At the same time, crafting foreign policy responses to counter emerging threats to not only the United States but also to the global order is an ever-evolving task. To remain static in foreign policy is to ensure the loss of leadership and respect among our allies and partners and to open the door for other states to take the lead in establishing a new order. While successive presidential administrations may adjust the settings on U.S. foreign policy and security, it is to be understood that there exists a constant in its guiding principles - promotion of security, democracy, prosperity, and development in the United States and around the world. Haass (2017) succinctly defines the task of foreign policy of “(discerning) what is both desirable and feasible at a cost that is acceptable” (p. 272). It also involves controlling the narrative while being flexible when needed. Haass also points out that “the world is changing and U.S. foreign policy must change with it.” (p. 319) Yet he does not prescribe a complete teardown of the “international project” but rather a renovation. The question presented to the foreign policy establishment is, can the U.S. remain as the principal architect of this renovation or will others build the project to their own liking. I argue that the U.S. can still be that principal architect while considering other perspectives on how the structure should stand securely and to the functionality and enjoyment of all that must occupy this space. We need not have to wait for geopolitical tensions to arise to generate new blueprints to create a more secure world; rather, we must be innovative, pragmatic, and diplomatic in our approach in projecting U.S. foreign policy abroad to ensure that security for all is a guarantee in our future.
I cannot say for certain whether my career path will take me into those circles that will allow me to help shape that future, but I can say with certainty that my time and experience in the ISS program at the University of Arizona was not wasted. I discovered great interest in the region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia - all former Soviet satellites or republics. I also have developed a fondness for American relations with the countries of Europe and the continuance of our partnership with them despite the founding fathers’ warning not to meddle into European affairs. The fact remains that the United States, by the virtue of its success and prosperity from its founding as an independent country to today, must not remain isolationist and neutral. Leaders lead with confidence and with purpose; the projection of U.S. foreign and security policy is that roadmap from which we must lead others and convince others to follow.
References
Haass, R. (2017). A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. Penguin Press, New York.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023, October 2). Oil and petroleum products explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php
United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. (n.d.). The Development of Foreign Policy. Retrieved on November 20, 2023 at https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/development#:~:text=In%20his%201796%20Farewell%20Address,were%20very%20different%20from%20those
Shaffer, B. (2011). Energy Politics. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. (2019, September). Guidance on Responding to Irregular Onward Movement of Refugees and Asylum-seekers. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5d8a255d4.pdf
Washington, G. (1796, September 19). To the people of the United States. 106th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document 106-21, Washington, 2000. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf
Foreign policy doesn’t exist merely on a single plane, but is multi-dimensional and multi-faceted. At the same time, varied global perspectives based on cultural and historical experience, geography, and resources (or lack thereof) provide a cacophony of voices all fighting to be heard over all others. Perspective and appreciation of alternate views count in crafting effective foreign policy and strategy as well as projecting U.S. influence to establish international security without sacrificing our own visions and ideals of creating a safer world with America at the helm. But it also requires knowledge in historical background, theories of causation, political philosophy, and innovative thought. The International Security Studies Master’s program at the University of Arizona through the courses offered and by the faculty that facilitated each course provided all the requisite needs mentioned above to make its participants fully appreciate and come away with a richer understanding of the importance of international security and U.S. foreign policy to project its core tenets.
Within the program I found six courses to be the most fundamental and impactful to not only my broad understanding of international security but also the foundations on which I hope to build a career of international relations upon. These six courses are as follows, POL 520A - How Terrorism Ends (Dr. Alex Braithwaite), POL 567A - Emerging Powers in the Global System and POL 588A - Politics of Energy Security (both facilitated by Dr. Mikhail Beznosov), POL 545A - Security in New Democracies (Dr. Jennifer Cyr), POL 523A - Immigration and Border Security (Dr. Lisa Sanchez), and POL 551 - Russian Foreign and Security Policy (Dr. Pat Willerton).
The American diplomat and former President at the Council Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, keenly noted that foreign policy begins at home; the logic of this statement cannot be overstated. If foreign policy does begin at home, its first physical manifestation to the outside world begins at our nation’s borders. The course Immigration and Border Security (POL 523A) allowed me to look beyond my perspective of immigration from this side of the U.S. border and to see immigration as a human experience from the eyes of those coming to the United States to seek a better life. Immigration appears to be one of the most difficult foreign and domestic policy issues in American government today, and as such the course was the most challenging in the program as I had to put aside many feelings on my own views on illegal immigration and focus on perspective and build pragmatic arguments for all three paper submissions. What I found most compelling in seeking to understand immigration from a foreign policy perspective were the underlying push and pull factors for people seeking a new life in the United States. While I produced a work that argued for the addition of two particular social group (PSG) additions to be included as grounds for asylum seekers (victims of domestic violence and youth facing forced gang recruitment in their respective countries) I also argued for more control on our nation’s borders by seeking cooperative arrangements with Mexico to take in more migrants from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Though every person has the right to migrate to find a better life or flee persecution from their own country, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (2019) also points out that “international refugee law does not confer upon refugees the right to choose their country of asylum (nor) authorize their irregular movement between successive countries solely in order to benefit from more favourable conditions" (p. 2). While immigration has been crucial to establishing the United States as a global power in the past, control of who comes over the border today must be better established if we are to maintain an orderly society at home and more effectively project our foreign policy abroad.
For the United States to claim that they are energy independent is enough of a misleading statement that would likely do more harm than good to its foreign policy and energy security constructs. Yet during the Trump presidency, similar statements were made proclaiming such declarations. Even though 2020 was the year the United States finally produced more barrels of oil per day than barrels consumed, we still imported on average 7.86 million barrels of oil per day (United States Energy Information Administration, 2023) to maintain our economic edge as a global leader. In POL 588A, the Politics of Energy Security, it was shown that energy independence is not the same as energy security. According to Shaffer (2011) “access to energy is a necessary element of a state’s security (and) an integrated element of foreign and national security policies (p. 91). Fossil energy is a finite commodity and one day in the future U.S. reserves will dry up and we will have to start a new quest for energy security. To address energy security, we must look at it through three lenses; the energy desired must be accessible, affordable, and adequate. Thus, we see the salience in Schaffer’s statement. So where can the United States find solace in energy security abroad or within its own borders? In one work, I argue that Central Asia is a region of the world that can provide such energy security, but the United States will have to contend with the region’s former overseers in Russia and a rising China to the east for influence; thus, foreign policy and diplomacy will play a vital role if the U.S. is to make any headway in moving Central Asian energy westward. A second region that will produce many unknowns in energy security is the Arctic. As one of the eight members of the Arctic Council, the U.S. plays a pivotal role in access and exploitation of the Arctic that will shape the future of not only energy supply and security but also geopolitics and climatic conditions that may speed up global warming producing irreversible effects that we may not easily recover from. I argue that though we have potentially vast reserves of oil and gas lying just under the surface of our Exclusive Economic Zone we need not tap and consume it immediately but use it responsibly to not only further ensure energy security in the future but also to ensure the preservation of the environmentally fragile Arctic region.
Another player in the Arctic, but not necessarily a littoral Arctic state, is China. This rising power was one of the states that was in focus in POL 567A, Emerging Powers in the Global System. Invited to become part of the global economic system through WTO membership in 2001, China has taken advantage of the accessibility of world markets and has been nothing less than an economic success story, yet China is using its new found fortunes and influence to find a following to challenge and potentially change the U.S. led world order that has been in play since the End of WWII and further solidified at the end of the Cold War. However, China is not the only player in this geopolitical game; the rest of the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, and South America) along with other states that have regional aspirations like Turkey and Mexico have changed the geopolitical map into a mosaic of sorts in where they are seeking some type of regional hegemony to influence or control the region in which they exist in. Is there enough room for these rising powers to exist in a multipolar and fractional world or will bordering spheres of influence overlap and geopolitical tensions rise to produce a new round of conflicts and wars that pull nations from far away into the fray? Such contestation of states may bring an end to the idea of Westphalian sovereignty that has been in place for the past 375 years; but it is important to note that since recorded history, empires and powerful civilizations have seemingly reached an apex and then fell. For the United States to avoid such a narrative it must, 1) learn to keep its influence alive and well in the global commons and 2) it must not try to forcefully suppress states in their aspirations but to strategically work with them to practice sovereign obligation to ensure those aspirations do not disrupt the order that could potentially cause more conflict on the world stage. My works in the course focused on the argument that aspiring states like Turkey and Mexico may prove to be perplexing problems if we don’t try to understand their aspirations and may cause more harm than good if we seek to fully suppress these ambitions and not help them reach a higher level of prosperity.
State sovereignty, though a widely held philosophical practice used to maintain the world order, is not theoretically absolute in its right. If a state fails in its sovereign obligation to control affairs within its borders, for example, providing safe haven for terrorist networks to operate out of, then counterterrorism efforts even within another state’s sovereign borders are deemed an acceptable practice to protect a target state’s foreign and domestic policy objectives. The United States has been no stranger to this foreign policy response from its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and its efforts in partnerships in eradicating terror networks globally. In POL 520A - How Terrorism Ends, my studies guided me on a focus of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade in a three-part series concerning their background and purpose, Israeli counterterrorism efforts against the group, and a two-prong approach recommendation to countering future threats and to facilitate their demise. Despite several ways terrorism can end (killing the main leaders, policing, splintering, political entry, or victory) many believe that terrorism will never go away. Again, perspective plays a central role here, it is often heard that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; a new “end” may be needed to show those who believe that these groups are fighting for them are only silencing them. When terrorists lose the support and sympathy of the people they are supposedly “fighting for” then their real raison d'être as illegitimate actors become exposed and a real path to diplomacy can begin.
As for states that enter the global commons with the ambition to join the global order and become democratic in its ideology and practice, how does U.S. foreign policy and international security ensure that these states become successful in their endeavors? In POL 545A – Security in New Democracies, the focus was on these new fledgling states that either overthrew their authoritarian regimes or have removed the yoke of their colonial past and started on the path of democratic transition. What many states found was that democratic transition is not that easy. In addition, states exhibit many shades of democracy ranging from liberal to illiberal and all types in between; what classifies them all together as democratic are the particular elements each state adopts that allows the people some degree of agency in their participation in government. What I found salient in this course is the role of these people - their role in civil-military relations, their role in agency, and most importantly, the role in their own future ultimately guides their path. One work focused on civil-military relations in democratic states while another focused on the difficult transition one former Communist state, Albania, is having despite being a NATO member but quite possibly stalling its membership into the EU by not fully satisfying the Copenhagen criteria requirements for formal acceptance into the union.
While Albania, a former ally of the Soviet Union through the Warsaw Pact, is navigating its way to democracy under the auspices of NATO protection, other former Warsaw Pact states and Soviet republics appear to still be in the shadow of a revanchist Russian state that seeks hegemony in its near abroad. In POL 551 - Russian Foreign and Security Policy, a uniquely Russian perspective sought to show how Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, perceives the world around them and how this perception is projected in geopolitics and dealings with not only the West, but China and other rising powers. Russia’s 1,300-year history in addressing its own security and existence combined with a new Russian identity after shedding its Soviet past has created a complex enigma for American foreign policy practitioners and experts. My works in the course focused on Putin’s rationales in his invasion of Ukraine based on prior U.S. foreign policy, particularly through a NATO lens and through that same NATO lens, crafting a new foreign policy response to Putin’s Russia. Lastly, I point out one of the faults of U.S. foreign policy toward Russia is based on the concept of paradigm blindness and the failure to seek out a new Russian perspective when crafting policy responses by still perceiving today’s Russia in its Soviet past.
Each course mentioned here I believe in some way finds connections with each other. While I have attempted to create a linear connection with each of the courses I can also find multiple connections among them as well as the courses not mentioned here that I have taken in the ISS Program along with those offered that I did not register for. In looking back at my time in the program I have come to understand that crafting and projecting U.S. foreign policy beyond our shores is a rather complex task, but it does not have to be enigmatic in its development. At the same time, crafting foreign policy responses to counter emerging threats to not only the United States but also to the global order is an ever-evolving task. To remain static in foreign policy is to ensure the loss of leadership and respect among our allies and partners and to open the door for other states to take the lead in establishing a new order. While successive presidential administrations may adjust the settings on U.S. foreign policy and security, it is to be understood that there exists a constant in its guiding principles - promotion of security, democracy, prosperity, and development in the United States and around the world. Haass (2017) succinctly defines the task of foreign policy of “(discerning) what is both desirable and feasible at a cost that is acceptable” (p. 272). It also involves controlling the narrative while being flexible when needed. Haass also points out that “the world is changing and U.S. foreign policy must change with it.” (p. 319) Yet he does not prescribe a complete teardown of the “international project” but rather a renovation. The question presented to the foreign policy establishment is, can the U.S. remain as the principal architect of this renovation or will others build the project to their own liking. I argue that the U.S. can still be that principal architect while considering other perspectives on how the structure should stand securely and to the functionality and enjoyment of all that must occupy this space. We need not have to wait for geopolitical tensions to arise to generate new blueprints to create a more secure world; rather, we must be innovative, pragmatic, and diplomatic in our approach in projecting U.S. foreign policy abroad to ensure that security for all is a guarantee in our future.
I cannot say for certain whether my career path will take me into those circles that will allow me to help shape that future, but I can say with certainty that my time and experience in the ISS program at the University of Arizona was not wasted. I discovered great interest in the region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia - all former Soviet satellites or republics. I also have developed a fondness for American relations with the countries of Europe and the continuance of our partnership with them despite the founding fathers’ warning not to meddle into European affairs. The fact remains that the United States, by the virtue of its success and prosperity from its founding as an independent country to today, must not remain isolationist and neutral. Leaders lead with confidence and with purpose; the projection of U.S. foreign and security policy is that roadmap from which we must lead others and convince others to follow.
References
Haass, R. (2017). A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. Penguin Press, New York.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023, October 2). Oil and petroleum products explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php
United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. (n.d.). The Development of Foreign Policy. Retrieved on November 20, 2023 at https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/development#:~:text=In%20his%201796%20Farewell%20Address,were%20very%20different%20from%20those
Shaffer, B. (2011). Energy Politics. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. (2019, September). Guidance on Responding to Irregular Onward Movement of Refugees and Asylum-seekers. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5d8a255d4.pdf
Washington, G. (1796, September 19). To the people of the United States. 106th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document 106-21, Washington, 2000. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf