Introduction
President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger left an unmatched legacy during their tenure as top US officials due to the advancements they championed in US foreign policies and their notable achievements. Before Nixon was elected into power, the US adopted an isolationist approach to USFP by limiting its engagement with international powers. However, Nixon and Kissinger embarked on a strategy that allowed the US and other nations, particularly China and the Middle Eastern countries, to exist in harmony and improve their relations. Although the president faced several issues and limited support from Congress because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal, Kissinger ensured that the government achieved its ultimate aims. Kissinger and Nixon were successful in establishing stronger ties with the Middle East and China, thus allowing the US to advance toward achieving its manifest destiny.
The Key Attributes of US Diplomacy in the Middle East and China
Nixon and Kissinger’s foreign policy in the Middle East involved establishing peace and democracy to encourage cohesion. In the early 1970s, the development of nations in the Middle East was limited by conflicts and a war that created tension between Israel and its neighbors, Egypt and Syria (Herring, 2008). As a result, President Nixon saw an opportunity to engage in peace talks as a stable environment would offer a massive market for its products and allow access to resources.
Subsequently, Henry Kissinger traveled to the Middle East to advocate for peace on two separate occasions. The secretary of state facilitated a successful treaty to cease violent engagement between Israel and Egypt in January 1974. A few months later, in May, Kissinger flew back to the Middle East to oversee peace talks between Israel and Syria (Indyk, 2021).
In addition, the government provided the nations involved in the conflict with incentives to encourage disengagement, including financial assistance, military aid, and supplies to ease and improve their economic standards (Herring, 2008). Eventually, the US succeeded in advocating for peace in the region and lifting the oil embargo initiated by other Middle Eastern countries due to its involvement with Israel during the War of Attrition. Thus, the government pushed for notable changes that have guided USFP in the Middle East until today.
During Nixon’s rule, China was recovering from a civil war that divided the nation into the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). However, the US did not recognize the PRC as the government, which resulted in issues between the two powers. However, Henry Kissinger and Nixon also saw opportunities in the vastness of the Chinese continent, thus encouraging them to foster positive relations with the PRC.
According to Harper (2022), the aim of the US government in their involvement with China in the 1970s was to strategically counter the USSR and prevent the movement of weapons. As a result, the president visited the PRC to hold talks with Mao Zedong, the communist leader in China (Herring, 2008). Afterward, Nixon’s government engaged in initiatives to mend its relationship with China and establish stronger economic ties. President Nixon’s talks with Mao Zedong had significant implications for US-China relationships as the meeting was streamed in the US, allowing citizens to familiarize themselves with the Chinese culture.
The Effects of Actions Taken by the US
During Nixon’s era, the US faced several issues, such as soaring inflation, political tension, and racial disparities that divided individuals. However, Nixon and Kissinger were successful in alleviating some of the problems the US was experiencing because they created several opportunities for the nation to thrive overseas. For example, establishing favorable ties with China allowed the US to trade its surplus production and enhance its regional markets (Marshall, 2018). In addition, its dominance as a world power in the Middle East allowed it to obtain raw materials and energy resources more efficiently. Moreover, the US set up bases and military training camps in the Middle East and occasionally collaborated with Middle Eastern governments to enhance security, thus allowing them to advance their military capacity (Herring, 2008). Therefore, these approaches were beneficial as they strengthened US bonds with nations overseas and increased their dominance.
The Long-Lasting Implications of Kissinger and Nixon’s Diplomacy
Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon left a legacy that has influenced US relations with other nations for decades. Initially, the US was inclined toward isolationism since it perceived engaging in other countries’ affairs as destructive Harper (2022). However, Nixon and Kissinger proved that the US can achieve its objectives by taking advantage of peaceful environments and political stability overseas (Marshall, 2018). As a result, these leaders pioneered US involvement and sacrifice to ensure the prosperity of other nations. Although the US is still fighting to prevent the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction in countries like Iran and China, a history of positive relations makes its initiatives easier as they have ground to express their opinions (Indyk, 2021). Thus, the decisions have had a long-lasting impact on the US and other global nations.
A Connection with the Scriptures and Biblical Worldview
The United States is a nation founded on the frameworks of peace, democracy, and human rights. As a result, since the 1840s, US leaders championed the idea of its manifest destiny, suggesting that the nation was chosen and had sealed a special covenant with God to occupy the whole of North America and multiply its population (Callaghan et al., 2019). However, at the beginning of the 20th Century, the idea of being ordained encouraged the US to venture beyond the Pacific into other nations, such as the Middle East and Asia. US leaders proposed that its divine attributes obligated them to spread capitalism, peace, and democracy to other nations (Callaghan et al., 2019).
Therefore, Kissinger and Nixon’s government played a major role in enabling the US to move a step further toward achieving its manifest destiny and fulfilling its covenant with God. Most national leaders before and after Nixon used America’s manifest destiny to justify acts of violence and war against countries like Iran (McDougall, 2018). However, Nixon’s tenure reflected God’s ways as he limited military engagement with other nations and instead opted to resolve issues through peaceful communication and signing treaties.
Conclusion
President Nixon’s main aim during his time as the US president was to establish a supportive environment overseas where the US could achieve its interests and encourage positive developments. As a result, his decision to mend ties with China and the Middle Eastern countries significantly contributed to their ambitions as it fostered peace and cooperation. Nixon and Kissinger’s USFP decisions have encouraged good relations between the US, China, and the Middle Eastern countries, thus giving it access to numerous resources and power to face other international threats. Moreover, their leadership has had a significant impact on the USFP today as they encourage peaceful existence and positive relations. Therefore, the leaders were successful in achieving the US manifest destiny and their goals of creating a democratic world order.
References
Callaghan, J., O’Connor, B., & Phythian, M. (2019). Ideologies of American foreign policy. Routledge.
Harper, J. L. (2022). Nixon in China, February 1972: Revisiting the Week that Changed the World. Survival, 64(2), 45-51. Web.
Herring, G. C. (2008). From colony to superpower: US foreign relations since 1776. Oxford University Press.
Indyk, M. (2021). Order before Peace: Kissinger’s Middle East Diplomacy and Its Lessons for Today. Foreign Aff., 100, 153. Web.
Marshall, J. (2018). Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum: Reviewed March 2018. American Journalism, 35(2), 270-272. Web.
McDougall, W. A. (2018). The tragedy of US Foreign Policy: how America’s civil religion betrayed the national interest. Yale University Press.