FREE ESSAY ON NIXON'S FOREIGN POLICY: A GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER

NIXON'S FOREIGN POLICY: A GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER

Nixon's Foreign Policy: 
Global Balance of Power
Period: 7
Background
Richard Nixon entered office in the midst of one of the gravest foreign policy crises in
American history. The Cold War was at its height, hundreds of thousands of American
troops were in Vietnam, and the views of society were split down the middle. With the aid
of his national security adviser and secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, Nixon felt that
it was imperative to change America's foreign policy. They felt that it was necessary to
support our interests in the long run, they felt it necessary to have a balance of power
throughout the world in order to ensure peace and prosperity. 
One has to take into consideration geopolitics when discussing balance of power. The main
purpose is stability by using different political philosophies based on geography, and
self-interest. If the major powers pursued their self-interest rationally and
predictably, an equilibrium would emerge from the conflicting interest. Nixon knew that a
strong America is essential to global equilibrium, and counted on stability to produce
it. 
Under Nixon's new policy partnership, strength, and the willingness to negotiate were the
three pillars essential in keeping peace. The policy would stop trying to eliminate
communism and win the Cold War, but rather replace it through new initiatives directed
toward finding areas of cooperation. In fact it was clear that the Soviet Union was
Nixon's biggest partner towards peace. Nixon parted with the philosophy of containment,
and thought that negotiations and peaceful competition would lead to strengthening of
democracies. These negotiations became known as Detente. 
When Nixon announced to the world his new plan for foreign affairs, it became known as
the Nixon Doctrine. It was an outline of America's foreign policy that dealt with the
ordeal that the past involvement in Korea and Vietnam, which were countries with no prior
commitment to us, and in regions not protected by any alliances. As a result he outlined
the criteria for involvement in world affairs. He stated, "1) The United States would
keep its treaty commitments. 2) The United States would 'provide a shield if a nuclear
power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we
consider vital to our security.' 3) In cases involving non-nuclear aggression, the United
States would 'look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility
of providing the manpower for defense.'" It was thought that if America would not always
be a safety net for smaller countries, they would increase their defense systems to be
more adequate for the job.
In the end the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy boils down to stability, and in order to
achieve that stability there must be a global balance of power. They want us as Americans
to keep our idealistic values and promote peace, but realize what the country has the
capability and authority to do in the world.
Options to global balance of power 
Wilsonian idealism reigned supreme with our foreign policy for many years, and the
country was quite comfortable with it. The policy enabled the United States to conduct
their global role with missionary vigor. It promoted democracy and human rights, which
made people, feel good about themselves. Wilson had the perception that the world was on
an inevitable course for peace and democracy, and it was our job to help the inevitable
along. America is the leader of the world, and it is our duty to set an example, and at
times act accordingly to show that example. Under this philosophy we are urged to
preserve freedom, democracy, and peace at any price. 
Wilsonianism rejects the thought of peace through balance of power in favor of peace
through moral consensus. It sees foreign policy as a struggle between good and evil, in
which evil foes must be defeated. When a crisis rises it is not disturbance of a balance
or equilibrium, but as a deviation from moral standards and order. The liberals and
Wilsonian believers thought Nixon's policy could not answer the questions pertaining to
such moral issues as arms control and human rights. They felt that his policy was not
going far enough and was going to continue the Cold War. His policy was not one, which
could help the little guy nor stand up for the values the majority of people had. 
Wilsoinan idealism is a classic philosophy based on the universal theme of good versus
evil. Striving for world peace and freedom for all, is its core principle. It is up to us
as Americans to determine what we think the best approach is.
Balance of power prevailed 
In order for Nixon and Kissenger to convince the country that their policy was the best,
they had to appeal to their senses. Most of the country was idealistic in their views
towards foreign policy; therefor Nixon invoked Wilsonian rhetoric. Nixon stated in an
address to the Soviet Union "Speaking for the United States, I can say this: We covet no
one else's territory; we seek no dominion over any other people; we seek the right to
live in peace, not only for ourselves but for all the peoples of this earth. Our power
will only be used to keep the peace, never to break it, only to defend freedom, never to
destroy it." Nixon shared Wilson's view on idealism and world peace, but felt obligated
to relate the way the world actually worked. Nixon and Kissinger made their new policy
not only necessary, but also desirable. 
The administration gradually submitted to the country the new realities, which were the
core of this policy. They admitted that the United States does have a special role to
play and world leadership and involvement is necessary for the World's and our own well
being. This up coming generation had a unique opportunity to create a lasting peaceful
environment, instead of unstable conflict. As a country we have to realize the importance
of conflicting views, and be realistically prepared do deal with their cause. Tremendous
self-restraint is needed, but agreements through negotiations are not just black and
white. They have lasting significance when contributed to a stable structure of peace
through sharing interests. Our country must be willing to work with all nations towards a
structure of peace in which all countries have an integral role.
This gradual approach was a way to let the country ease into and get used to the idea of
the policy. It was made clear in public addresses rather than official reports to
Congress. The perception and views of the press changed drastically and often, with the
support of liberal opponents. Through all the criticisms and controversy the Nixon
Administration held strong and fulfilled their beliefs. 
My own Two Cents
I must admit that growing up in the world today, Wilsonian idealism is extremely
appealing, but if I have learned anything in this world it's that people need to accept
realities and capabilities. Morally I cannot argue with the values and beliefs of
idealism, but realistically no one can argue the policy of Nixon and Kissinger.
Especially in the time of Nixon's presidency, it was essential to change America's
foreign policy and create a stable environment for coming generations.
The problem that I find with idealism is the abundance of unfulfilled promises. Our
country cannot "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." In fact when our country
attempts to fulfill these promises our military becomes overextended, and morale drops.
We cannot be the world's policemen, because it would be hypocritical and impractical to
dictate how one should act. Idealists strive for peace by creating conflict, which in
turn just creates more conflict; one word backs that theory, Vietnam. Historically
idealism had not proved its capability of producing peace.
Global balancing strives for peace through stability, and the only extended periods of
peace in our history is when there has been a balance of power. It is when one nation
becomes more powerful than all others when conflict is created. As repugnant as having a
foreign policy based on our own self-interests seems; it creates an equilibrium and
ultimately peace. It would definitely be safer to have a healthy United States, Europe,
Japan Russia, and China each balancing each other, and not playing one against the other.
Our country can become more effective around the world if and only if we base our
decisions on realities rather than dreams. 
Both policies want peace; one is just more practical than the other. I find no fault in
promoting peace, democracy, human rights, and prosperity, but I don't believe that it is
our job to enforce it. Our country should be safe and keep foreign policy within the real
of our capabilities. This is a policy of stability and cooperation, which in turn creates
what everyone wants, peace. 
Bibliography
1. Nixon: The Fourth Year of His Presidency 
Congressional Quarterly 
Copyright 1973 by Congressional Quarterly Inc.
2. Diplomacy
Henry Kissinger
Published: 1994 by Simon & Schuster
3. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy 
Volumes: 1 and 2
Subjects: Balance of Power, The Nixon Doctrine
4. Nixon in the White House: The Frustration of Power 
Rowland Evans, Jr. and Robert D. Novak
Published: 1971 by Random House Inc.
5. Nixon: The Education of a Politician 1913 - 1962
Stephen E. Ambrose
Published: 1987 by Simon & Schuster