DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining Obama's Foreign Policy Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining Obama's Foreign Policy Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How To No. 2457 September 1, 2010 Defining the Obama Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How to Avoid Them Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Abstract: President Barack Obama has said that Amer- ica would reach out to other countries as “an equal part- ner” rather than as the “exceptional” nation that many Talking Points before him had embraced; that “any world order that ele- • President Obama’s foreign policy ideas are jell- vates one nation or group of people over another will inev- ing into what can be described as an emerging itably fail”; and that “[o]ur problems must be dealt with Obama Doctrine. Unfortunately, it is a doctrine that makes the United States—and the world— through partnership” and “progress must be shared.” He less secure, courting global instability. has laid out in his public statements the tenets of a doctrine • The Obama Doctrine revolves around trust in that, if enacted, would enable his Administration to the ability and willingness of international remake America as one nation among many, with no sin- institutions to solve our most fundamental gular claim either to responsibility or exceptionalism: (1) foreign policy challenges, such as terrorism or America will ratify more treaties and turn to international nuclear proliferation, often before we turn to organizations more often to deal with global crises and our traditional friends and treaty allies. security concerns like nuclear weapons, often before turn- • Under President Obama, the United States ing to our traditional friends and allies; (2) America will will also try so-called soft-power approaches emphasize diplomacy and “soft power” instruments such like summitry and foreign aid and de-empha- as summits and foreign aid to promote its aims and down- size military might. play military might; (3) America will adopt a more humble • The Obama Doctrine is anchored in the belief that America is devoid of singularity, excep- attitude in state-to-state relations; and (4) America will tionalism, or historic mission rather than a play a more restrained role on the international stage. country with unique resources, experiences, These tenets, however well-intentioned, will make Amer- and devotion to freedom. ica and the world far more insecure. Examining President • The Obama Doctrine, by minimizing Ameri- Obama’s doctrinal statements and actions more closely can sovereignty and self-reliance, amounts to demonstrates why reasserting American leadership on a radical departure from the approach taken behalf of liberty would be the wiser course. by America’s previous Presidents. This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: http://report.heritage.org/bg2457 Produced by the Douglas and Sarah Allison American Presidents become known for “signa- Center for Foreign Policy Studies ture” statements and responses to foreign policy and of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis national security challenges. Ronald Reagan is known Institute for International Studies for his efforts to defeat Communism and advance Published by The Heritage Foundation “peace through strength.” Bill Clinton is remembered 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002–4999 (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. No. 2457 September 1, 2010 for his argument that military interventions, such believe in American exceptionalism, but “just as I sus- as his humanitarian intervention in the former pect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism Yugoslavia, are justified “where our values and and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”2 our interests are at stake and where we can make a 1 Obama expanded this theme of America as difference.” “equal partner” in Cairo in June 2009: “Given our It is fashionable to describe presidential state- interdependence,” he said, “any world order that ments or responses to foreign policy challenges as elevates one nation or group of people over another “doctrine.” As Barack Obama’s second year in office will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, winds down, there are increasing references to an we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must “Obama Doctrine,” including comparisons to what be dealt with through partnership; progress must it is not (the Bush Doctrine, for example). be shared.”3 Doctrines by themselves are not legally binding To demonstrate that he fully believes in what he declarations. Nor are they always ideas embraced as has proclaimed, he has laid out in his public state- such by the Presidents in whose names they are ments the tenets of his doctrine that will enable his declared. Rather, they are clearly expressed princi- Administration to remake America as one nation ples and policies, often deduced by consensus, among many, with no singular claim either to which set the tone for how each Administration responsibility or exceptionalism: intends to act on the world stage. Doctrines clarify 1. America will ratify more treaties and turn to how a President views America’s role in the world international organizations more often to deal and his strategy for relations with other nations. with global crises and security concerns like During Obama’s first year in office, no widely re- nuclear weapons, often before turning to our peated description of an Obama Doctrine emerged. traditional friends and allies; One reason may be that for much of that time, 2. America will emphasize diplomacy and “soft domestic policy battles took center stage. But since power” instruments such as summits and for- pushing his health care bill through Congress and eign aid to promote its aims and downplay mil- successfully taking on Wall Street, the President has itary might; turned more of his attention to international issues, and based on a number of statements he has made 3. America will adopt a more humble attitude in and documents he has issued, it is possible to de- state-to-state relations; and scribe the set of ideas and policies—in line with the 4. America will play a more restrained role on the customs described here—that make up his doctrine. international stage. President Obama may have coined the phrase These tenets may be well-intentioned, ostensibly that best characterizes this doctrine in a speech in to improve America’s standing in the world, but Trinidad and Tobago in April 2009. He said that they will make America and the world far more America would reach out to other countries as “an insecure. Examining President Obama’s doctrinal equal partner” rather than as the “exceptional” nation statements and actions more closely demonstrates that many before him had embraced. During his why reasserting American leadership on behalf of first meeting with the Group of 20 economies in liberty would be the wiser course. Europe, Obama went further, saying that he does 1. “Clinton’s Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention, 29 August 1996: Foreign Policy Excerpts,” at http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/elect96/bc960829.htm (August 6, 2010). 2. Real Clear Politics, “Obama’s Press Conference in Strasbourg,” April 4, 2009, at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/ 2009/04/obamas_press_conference_in_str.html (July 30, 2010). 3. “Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo,” The New York Times, June 4, 2009, at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/ 04obama.text.html (July 30, 2010). page 2 No. 2457 September 1, 2010 The Precedents of American that therefore has responsibilities beyond those of Exceptionalism other countries. The idea that the United States is an “excep- Particularly good examples are the policies of tional” nation has been a part of the American story George Washington, James Monroe, Harry Truman, ever since the country’s founding. In his first inau- and Ronald Reagan in response to the challenges gural address, President George Washington said they faced. that the “preservation of the sacred fire of liberty George Washington. Among the Founding and the destiny of the republican model of govern- Fathers, George Washington proved himself adept ment are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as at safeguarding the young nation’s interests. In his finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the 4 first State of the Union address, he advised Congress hands of the American people.” This form of gov- to consider as one of its highest priorities the matter ernment, based on the principles of liberty and gov- of providing for the common defense: “To be pre- ernment of and by the people, had not been tried, pared for war,” Washington said, “is one of the most and its future depended on every generation of effectual means of preserving peace.” If Congress Americans protecting and preserving it. intended to ensure the young country’s survival, it _________________________________________ must take steps to strengthen and protect it, partic- America’s more memorable Presidents shared ularly by establishing a national defense system. a common perspective: that the U.S. is truly While that statement could be called Washing- a remarkable country that therefore has ton’s doctrine, it is not what some historians cite. responsibilities beyond those of other countries. Rather, they refer to a statement he made at the very ____________________________________________ end of his presidency in his Farewell Address. The challenges Washington faced in keeping friendly Since then, most Presidents in some fashion or relations with other countries so as not to take sides another have acknowledged that America plays a in their wars led him to warn his countrymen “to special role in history. It is a view deeply ingrained steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion in the American conscience that has been mani- of the foreign world.”5 This statement was not iso- fested in the foreign policies of America’s Presidents lationist, as some today portray it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AN ANALYSIS of POST-COLD WAR CONCEPTS in AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: CONTINUITY OR CHANGE? by Ana Maria Venegas a Thesis Submitted
    AN ANALYSIS OF POST-COLD WAR CONCEPTS IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: CONTINUITY OR CHANGE? by Ana Maria Venegas A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Global Security Studies Baltimore, Maryland December 2014 © 2014 Ana Maria Venegas All Rights Reserved Abstract This thesis investigates post-Cold War concepts in US foreign policy. At the end of the Cold War, prominent political scientists and commentators argued, for various reasons, that the strategic environment was so dramatically different that the United States would no longer be able to engage the world as it had in the past. In an attempt to understand the ramifications of the evolution of the strategic environment, this thesis asked the question: Have the three post-Cold War presidents, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack H. Obama, continued to engage the world in ways consistent with previous administrations or have the broken from traditional concepts in American foreign policy? To answer this question, declaratory foreign policy as articulated in national security strategy documents and key foreign policy engagements were analyzed and compared to nine traditional concepts in American foreign policy identified by prominent historians and political scientists. The post-Cold War administrations continued to develop foreign policy consistent with the concepts identified by historians and political scientists suggesting a measure of consistency in the way the United States engages the world. Additionally, each president developed foreign policy that exhibited unique characteristics inconsistent with the traditional concepts. These policies were characterized by the importance placed on multilateral consensus; an emphasis on multilateral agreements and alliances to foster a stable international order; and the reliance on international organizations to address regional and global issues.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dysfunctional Triangle an Analysis of America's Relations with Israel
    SIT Graduate Institute/SIT Study Abroad SIT Digital Collections Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection SIT Study Abroad Spring 2015 A Dysfunctional Triangle An analysis of America’s relations with Israel and their impact on the current nuclear accord with Iran Andrew Falacci SIT Study Abroad Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection Part of the American Politics Commons, International Relations Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, and the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Falacci, Andrew, "A Dysfunctional Triangle An analysis of America’s relations with Israel and their impact on the current nuclear accord with Iran" (2015). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2111. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2111 This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the SIT Study Abroad at SIT Digital Collections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection by an authorized administrator of SIT Digital Collections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Falacci A Dysfunctional Triangle An analysis of America’s relations with Israel and their impact on the current nuclear accord with Iran Andrew Falacci Geneva, Spring 2015 School of International Training -Sending School- The George Washington University, Washington D.C 1 Falacci Acknowledgements: Robert Frost talked about looking towards “the path less traveled”, where all the difference would be made. I have lived the young part of my life staying true to such advice, but I also hold dearly the realization that there are special people in my life who have, in some way or another, guided me towards that “path less traveled.” I want to take the time to thank my family for pushing me and raising me to be the person I am today.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Foreign Policy Doctrines
    20 July 2015 Presidential Doctrines, the Use of Force and International Order Did the US’ military and legal reactions to the 9/11 attacks fundamentally transform its foreign and security policies? Joseph Siracusa doesn’t think so. He argues that the so-called Bush and Obama Doctrines have had more in common with previous presidential approaches than most people realize. By Joseph Siracusa for ISN In the ever-changing landscape of international relations, the extent to which the actions of the United States contribute to justice and order remains a source of contentious debate. Indeed, it is difficult to find a point in recent history when the United States and its foreign policy have been subject to such polarised and acrimonious reflection, both domestically and internationally. Notwithstanding recent ‘decline’ debates and the rise of emerging powers, the United States continues to hold a formidable advantage over its chief rivals in terms of formal power assets more than twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War. Few anticipated this situation; on the contrary, many assumed that, after a brief moment of unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union, international affairs would soon regain a certain symmetry. Instead, US hegemony is still par for the course. In this context, because the foreign policy ‘doctrines’ of American presidents remain an important driver of the outlook of the United States, these doctrines continue to play a significant role in shaping international order. Though they have veered from isolationist to interventionist to expansionist over the years, these doctrines in fact exhibit a remarkable continuity – even in the post 9/11 era.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School October 2019 Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations Hanifi Ozkarakaya University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Political Science Commons Scholar Commons Citation Ozkarakaya, Hanifi, "Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations" (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/8675 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations by Hanifi Ozkarakaya A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Nicolas Thompson, Ph.D. Bernd Reiter, Ph.D. Steven Roach, Ph.D. Date of Approval October 16, 2019 Keywords: The American Foreign Policy, Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations Copyright © 2019, Hanifi Ozkarakaya TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and China: Ruptures and Realignments In
    No.9 2017 PUBLISHED BY THE SWEDISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. WWW.UI.SE The United States and China: Ruptures and Realignments in Trump’s First Six Months Oliver Turner Donald Trump’s election as president of the to broadly follow the path trodden by Bar- United States in late 2016 brought expecta- rack Obama. Where do we stand six months tions of radical departures in US politics and after the election of Trump? What has been foreign policy. Of all the candidates – Re- President Trump’s early approach towards publican and Democrat – Trump was the China and what has been the Chinese re- most vocal on China during his campaign. sponse? What do the politics and His rhetoric swung from professing a ‘love’ worldviews of the Trump administration re- for China to claiming that it is guilty of ‘rap- veal about the balance of US-China rela- ing’ the United States. Yet his unwavering tions today? Who in the Trump administra- appeal to right wing populism ensured that tion has been influential in steering China in the winner-take-all, zero-sum world he policy? And what do Trump’s first six portrayed, Chinese gains were seen as the months in charge tell us about what the re- cause of American losses. Prior to the elec- mainder of his tenure might hold for US- tion it was widely expected that Hillary China relations? Ultimately, we find that Clinton would come to occupy the White within the bounds of US-China relations, House, and that while her long-time politi- Trump’s first six months as president have cal criticisms of China argued for modifica- been simultaneously of note and entirely tions in Washington’s relations with Bei- unremarkable.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Interview with ITAR-TASS
    Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Interview With ITAR-TASS/Rossiya TV July 2, 2009 Q. Mr. President, thank you very much for having us today. The President. Thanks. Q. It's your first interview for the Russian media. The President. Yes. Q. And it will be on air in TV Channel Russia on the Fourth of July. Congratulations, sir. The President. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, and I'm very much looking forward to visiting Russia on Monday. President's Visit to Russia Q. You're leaving for Russia, and it will be your second time there. What's your personal sense of Russia? The President. Well, I had a wonderful time when we visited both Moscow and Perm; this was several years ago. I was traveling as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, interested in issues of nuclear proliferation. The people were very warm; we had a wonderful reception. I had a wonderful time visiting Red Square and the Kremlin. I think that traveling there as President, obviously, is very different, and now those issues that I was interested in as a Senator, of nuclear proliferation, how we can reduce tensions and conflicts between our countries, I'm in a position, hopefully, to get more accomplished than my first visit. Russia/Russia-U.S. Relations Q. And what we in Russia can expect from the new American leader? How you see the role of the Russia in the world? The President. Well, look, Russia is a great country with an extraordinary culture and extraordinary traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Barack Obama and the Dilemmas of American Grand Strategy
    Hal Brands Barack Obama and the Dilemmas of American Grand Strategy Did the Obama administration have a grand strategy? If so, was it effec- tive? Before Obama’s presidency even ended, these questions were unleashing fusillades of contradictory commentary. Sympathetic observers credited Obama with a wise, well-integrated grand strategy that enhanced American power for “the long-game.”1 Detractors, by contrast, argued that Obama’s strategy of “over- arching American retrenchment and accommodation” had been pernicious— even devastating—to national security.2 Still other prominent observers rejected the very idea of an Obama grand strategy, charging that his policies lacked any coherent design.3 Finally, and further muddying the waters, Obama himself was sometimes dismissive of grand strategy, once remarking that “I don’t really even need George Kennan right now.”4 As the president’s tenure ends, it is useful to revisit these issues and come to grips with grand strategy under Obama. In fact, the Obama administration did have a fairly clear and consistent grand strategy—if one defines grand strategy realistically, as a set of basic principles that guide policy. And that grand strategy reflected a mixture of continuity and change vis-a-vis the foreign policy tradition Obama inherited. In many ways, Obama’s grand strategy fit squarely within the broad contours of American statecraft during the post-war and post-Cold War eras, as its broadest objective was main- taining U.S. primacy and a liberal international order. Yet Obama simultaneously sought to define his grand strategy in opposition to the purported mistakes of George W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Obama Doctrine and the Arab Spring
    The Politics of Policy: The Obama Doctrine and the Arab Spring Hannah Tyler History 436: America in the Middle East December 12, 2016 Tyler 2 Abstract: The purpose of the paper is to examine the Obama Doctrine and establish a clearer definition of what it is by contextualizing it through the lens of other presidential doctrines, the schools of realism and idealism. In addition, it seeks to establish specific tenets of the Obama Doctrine, as well as identify the contradictions present within the Obama Doctrine. I will then examine Obama’s arc of disenchantment with the Arab Spring, explaining how his arc of disenchantment affected the way he made policy regarding the Middle East. The Obama Doctrine is a contentious topic in the scholarly world. In the stacks of Fondren Library, books about Obama span an entire shelf; many of them are dedicated to the Obama Doctrine and figuring out what it is. In one of these books, Barack Obama’s Post-American Foreign Policy, Robert Singh dedicates an entire chapter simply to trying to put a label on Obama and his foreign policy; the chapter is titled “‘I’ve Got A Confusion on Obama’: Cosmopolitan, Liberal Internationalist, Realist, Reaganite, Leftist?”1 Scholars often compare the Obama Doctrine to other doctrines such as the Bush Doctrine and the Eisenhower Doctrine, and posit that these doctrines were much more clear-cut than the Obama Doctrine is; there is more literature dedicated to figuring out the Obama Doctrine than there are most other presidential doctrines. In my paper, I will examine the Obama Doctrine, especially as it applies to the Middle East, and explore some of its intricacies, and then examine the way that the Arab Spring changed the Obama Doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There an Obama Doctrine?
    Is there an Obama Doctrine? Analyzing Jeffrey Goldberg’s “The Obama Doctrine” by key strategic areas Anthony H. Cordesman March 10, 2016 An article in today's New York Times flags a Presidential interview in the Atlantic in ways that are certain to draw global attention, particularly in the countries whose leaders are criticized, the Middle East, Russia, China, and Asia. The Times article and headline seem almost designed to provoke an international reaction. The article states that President Obama singled out Saudi Arabia as an ally that failed to support the United States. The text also states that he felt that Britain and France had failed to support the United States in its campaign against Qaddafi in Libya and that the Ukraine was a natural Russian sphere of influence. It implies that the President sees our allies as a key reason for the inability of the United States to have a decisive impact on current crises. It is important to note that Jeffrey Goldberg’s actual article is more nuanced and balanced than the Times report suggests. His article offers a fascinating set of quotes, mixed with commentary and criticism—although it still does so in ways that are likely to be a source of serious tension with our allies. Goldberg introduces his article rather bluntly, and keeps up these themes throughout text. He starts by referring to the decision to not launch cruises missiles against Syria as follows: Friday, August 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • President Obama's Foreign Policy Vision: Defining the Obama Doctrine Based On: the Obama Doctrine: Hindering American Foreign
    President Obama’s Foreign Policy Vision: Defining the Obama Doctrine Based on: The Obama Doctrine: Hindering American Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation’s Lecture Event featuring Dr. Kim Holmes and Dr. Henry Nau, September 30, 2010. Defining the Obama Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How to Avoid Them by Kim Holmes, Ph.D., and James Carafano, Ph.D., Published by The Heritage Foundation, September 1, 2010 Obama’s Foreign Policy by Henry Nau, Published by Hoover Institution, Policy Review, Number 160, September 29, 2010 What Are the Key Tenets of the Obama Doctrine? By Kim Holmes, Ph.D. and James Carafano, Ph.D. Published online at The Heritage Foundation (no date provided) Almost two years into his term, President Obama had hoped to improve America’s standing in the world by crafting a foreign policy vastly different from his predecessor’s. His statements and actions demonstrate a doctrine that sees America less as “the exceptional nation” than as an “equal partner,” one nation among many. Characteristics of his policies include a heightened emphasis on multilateralism, an apologetic attitude toward the past, a more restrained role on the global stage, and an atmosphere of mutual respect toward oppressive autocracies. Examining the principles and policies advanced thus far by the Obama Administration, Professor Henry Nau and former Assistant Secretary of State Kim R. Holmes analyzed whether the unfolding Obama Doctrine has in fact improved America’s standing in the world and our national interests According to Dr. Holmes and Dr. Nau, President Obama has “laid out in his public statements, the tenets of a doctrine that, if enacted, would enable his Administration to remake America as one nation among many, with no singular claim either to responsibility or exceptionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Obama Doctrine: Hindering American Foreign Policy Kim R
    No. 1172 Delivered September 30, 2010 November 29, 2010 The Obama Doctrine: Hindering American Foreign Policy Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., Henry R. Nau, Ph.D., and Helle C. Dale Abstract: The President has not yet defined the Obama Doctrine but its features are emerging through his state- ments and actions. These include a growing reliance on Talking Points international organizations, a greater sense of humility about American values and foreign policy achievements, a • The emerging Obama Doctrine is focused on risk aversion, humility on the world stage, reliance on foreign aid rather than military power, among and international cooperation at all cost. other things. It is a value-neutral approach that rejects the concept of American exceptionalism. Essentially, the Pres- • President Obama considers the United States ident hopes that if every nation can be brought to the table, just one of many nations and an “equal part- ner,” while others like Russia and China play they will eventually agree. In this analysis, the world is like a game of chess to outmaneuver the United a puzzle of equally valuable pieces that can be made to fit States wherever possible. together. Unfortunately, other nations like Russia and Chi- na look at the world as if it were a game of chess and are • The President’s commitment to international treaties reflects a belief that they should con- moving swiftly to outmaneuver the United States. In the strain the U.S. in some ways and that our short term, American foreign policy is difficult to change legal system should adapt to international dramatically because there are so many nonpolitical actors norms rather than conform to such internal involved throughout the “permanent government.” The restraints as our Constitution, our history, Iraq and Afghanistan deployments have been harder to and our traditional understanding of free- wind down than President Obama foresaw, and Guantan- dom and liberty.
    [Show full text]
  • Rotary Club, Lowell, MI, August 26, 1970” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box D30, folder “Rotary Club, Lowell, MI, August 26, 1970” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. -~A-~1 ~;,:-tf::~:-: //;~~ CONGRESSMAN NEWS GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE --FOR RELBASE AT 12 NOON-­ 'Hednesday, August 26, 1970 Excerpts from a Speech By Rep. Gerald Ro Ford before the Lowell Rotexl Club r-.;e have turned the corner into a new era in foreign affairs .. vie fire embarked on a foreign policy program that can provide the framework for a durable peace. \>Je are pursuing a policy that contains grefl.t promiS9 and hope for future ganerationso I am speaking of the foreign policy doctrine enunciated by President Nixon when he said we will help those of our friends who are wilJing to help themselves .. The Monroe Doctrine said to Europe, nstay out of tre western hemisphere." The Truman Doctrine said to tre Soviet Union, 11Stay out of countries that want to remain non-Commu.."listo" The Nixon Doctrine says, "The nations of each part of the world sbonld assume the primary responsibility for their own well-being; and we will help them do thato 11 The 'Honroe, Truman and Nixon Doctrines were enunciated at • critical turning poin~in our histor,y.
    [Show full text]