Professional Documents
Culture Documents
https://testbankfan.com/download/american-foreign-policy-the-dynamics-of-choice-in-t
he-21st-century-4th-edition-jentleson-test-bank/
Chapter 1 The Strategic Context: Foreign Policy Strategy and the Essence of Choice
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. In what way did the end of the Cold War leave the world more secure?
a. Civil and ethnic conflict were also brought to an end.
b. The threat of an all-out nuclear war was diminished.
c. Democracy and human rights faced no setbacks directly after the end of the Cold
War.
d. The United States would no longer engage in warfare.
ANS: B OBJ: Conceptual KEY: Cold War
3. How did security threats against the United States change after the Cold War?
a. External security threats were greatly diminished, allowing the government to
focus its energy on other foreign policy issues.
b. The U.S. economy became a more prominent concern than foreign security threats
against the United States.
c. The nature of security threats changed, presenting newer threats like diseases of
mass destruction.
d. The United States was no longer concerned with threats from abroad.
ANS: C OBJ: Conceptual KEY: Cold War, Change
4. What is one of the most fundamental differences between the international system and
domestic political systems?
a. The international system lacks a recognized central governing authority and is
considered anarchic.
b. Domestic politics are considerably more important than international politics.
c. The domestic political system is easier to manage and navigate than the
international system.
d. The two spheres are completely separate.
ANS: A OBJ: Applied KEY: Theory
6. What is deterrence?
a. the prevention of war by fear of retaliation
b. forcing one’s enemy to negotiate
c. launching a full-scale war against another state
d. the fear of international isolation
ANS: A OBJ: Factual KEY: Deterrence, Cold War
7. The metaphor of comparing international politics to a game of billiards best illustrates which
concept?
a. the importance of anarchy in the international system
b. the influence of the number of poles in a system on state behavior
c. the trade-off between war and peace in foreign policy
d. the way in which a state’s position in the international system affects what it can
do in its foreign policy
ANS: D OBJ: Applied KEY: Theory, Realism
8. Which of the following is NOT one of the core goals that help define the U.S. national
interest?
a. power
b. peace
c. prudence
d. principles
ANS: C OBJ: Factual KEY: National Interest
17. Which American foreign policy decision demonstrates that core U.S. foreign policy goals can
be complementary?
a. the Marshall Plan
b. the 2003 Iraq War
c. China policy in 1989
d. Guatemala policy in 1954
ANS: A OBJ: Applied KEY: National Interest
18. Why did the George H. W. Bush administration refuse to revoke China’s most-favored-nation
(MFN) status?
a. China did not have a record of human rights violations.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
A nobler counsel breathes from the charter of our independence; a
happier province belongs to our republic. Peace we would extend,
but by persuasion and example,—the moral force, by which alone it
can prevail among the nations. Wars we may encounter, but it is in
the sacred character of the injured and the wronged; to raise the
trampled rights of humanity from the dust; to rescue the mild form
of liberty from her abode among the prisons and the scaffolds of the
elder world, and to seat her in the chair of state among her adoring
children; to give her beauty for ashes; a healthful action for her cruel
agony; to put at last a period to her warfare on earth; to tear her star-
spangled banner from the perilous ridges of battle, and plant it on
the rock of ages. There be it fixed for ever,—the power of a free
people slumbering in its folds, their peace reposing in its shade!
Close of the Speech of Daniel Webster
January, 1832.
Mr. President,—The plain and seemingly obvious truth, that in a
fair and equal exchange of commodities all parties gained, is a noble
discovery of modern times. The contrary principle naturally led to
commercial rivalries, wars, and abuses of all sorts. The benefits of
commerce being regarded as a stake to be won, or an advantage to be
wrested from others by fraud or by force, governments naturally
strove to secure them to their own subjects; and when they once set
out in this wrong direction, it was quite natural that they should not
stop short till they ended in binding, in the bonds of restriction, not
only the whole country, but all of its parts. Thus we are told that
England first protected by her restrictive policy, her whole empire
against all the world, then Great Britain against the colonies, then
the British islands against each other, and ended by vainly
attempting to protect all the great interests and employment of the
state by balancing them against each other. Sir, such a system,
carried fully out, is not confined to rival nations, but protects one
town against another, considers villages, and even families as rivals;
and cannot stop short of “Robinson Crusoe in his goat skins.” It takes
but one step further to make every man his own lawyer, doctor,
farmer, and shoemaker—and, if I may be allowed an Irishism, his
own seamstress and washerwoman. The doctrine of free trade, on the
contrary, is founded on the true social system. It looks on all
mankind as children of a common parent—and the great family of
nations as linked together by mutual interests. Sir, as there is a
religion, so I believe there is a politics of nature. Cast your eyes over
this various earth—see its surface diversified by hills and valleys,
rocks, and fertile fields. Notice its different productions—its infinite
varieties of soil and climate. See the mighty rivers winding their way
to the very mountain’s base, and thence guiding man to the vast
ocean, dividing, yet connecting nations. Can any man who considers
these things with the eye of a philosopher, not read the design of the
great Creator (written legibly in his works) that his children should
be drawn together in a free commercial intercourse, and mutual
exchanges of the various gifts with which a bountiful Providence has
blessed them. Commerce, sir, restricted even as she has been, has
been the great source of civilization and refinement all over the
world. Next to the Christian religion, I consider free trade in its
largest sense as the greatest blessing that can be conferred upon any
people. Hear, sir, what Patrick Henry, the great orator of Virginia,
whose soul was the very temple of freedom, says on this subject:—
“Why should we fetter commerce? If a man is in chains, he droops and bows to
the earth, because his spirits are broken, but let him twist the fetters from his legs,
and he will stand erect. Fetter not commerce! Let her be as free as the air. She will
range the whole creation, and return on the four winds of heaven to bless the land
with plenty.”
But, it has been said, that free trade would do very well, if all
nations would adopt it; but as it is, every nation must protect itself
from the effect of restrictions by countervailing measures. I am
persuaded, sir, that this is a great, a most fatal error. If retaliation is
resorted to for the honest purpose of producing a redress of the
grievance, and while adhered to no longer than there is a hope of
success, it may, like war itself, be sometimes just and necessary. But
if it have no such object, “it is the unprofitable combat of seeing
which can do the other the most harm.” The case can hardly be
conceived in which permanent restrictions, as a measure of
retaliation, could be profitable. In every possible situation, a trade,
whether more or less restricted, is profitable, or it is not. This can
only be decided by experience, and if the trade be left to regulate
itself, water would not more naturally seek its level, than the
intercourse adjust itself to the true interest of the parties. Sir, as to
this idea of the regulation by government of the pursuits of men, I
consider it as a remnant of barbarism disgraceful to an enlightened
age, and inconsistent with the first principles of rational liberty. I
hold government to be utterly incapable, from its position, of
exercising such a power wisely, prudently, or justly. Are the rulers of
the world the depositories of its collected wisdom? Sir, can we forget
the advice of a great statesman to his son—“Go, see the world, my
son, that you may learn with how little wisdom mankind is
governed.” And is our own government an exception to this rule, or
do we not find here, as every where else, that
“Man, proud man,
Robed in a little brief authority,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
As make the angels weep?”
I confess I feel anxious for the fate of this measure, less on account
of any agency I have had in proposing it, as I hope and believe, than
from a firm, sincere and thorough conviction, that no one measure
ever presented to the councils of the nation, was fraught with so
much unmixed good, and could exert such powerful and enduring
influence in the preservation of the union itself and upon some of its
highest interests. If I can be instrumental, in any degree, in the
adoption of it, I shall enjoy, in that retirement into which I hope
shortly to enter, a heart-feeling satisfaction and a lasting consolation.
I shall carry there no regrets, no complaints, no reproaches on my
own account. When I look back upon my humble origin, left an
orphan too young to have been conscious of a father’s smiles and
caresses; with a widowed mother, surrounded by a numerous
offspring, in the midst of pecuniary embarrassments; without a
regular education, without fortune, without friends, without patrons,
I have reason to be satisfied with my public career. I ought to be
thankful for the high places and honors to which I have been called
by the favor and partiality of my countrymen, and I am thankful and
grateful. And I shall take with me the pleasing consciousness that in
whatever station I have been placed, I have earnestly and honestly
labored to justify their confidence by a faithful, fearless, and zealous
discharge of my public duties. Pardon these personal allusions.
Speech of John C. Calhoun,