Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Europe trips made by the President of the United States - part I

I would like to tell you about international trips made by Presidents of the United States and I will focus on visits in Europe. We will be going through the list of U.S. Presidents who visited our country or some of our neighbours. In part I we will move back in time to the 20th century. Later we will discuss times we lived in and at the end we will talk about the most recent visit of the President of the United States in Poland.

Presidential international travel first occurred during the 20th century. Previously they traveled by ship. Later by airplanes, jets or even helicopters.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921) spent nine days at sea and then more than half a year in Europe at the Aftermath of World War I. He traveled to Paris (France) to settle the peace terms at the Peace Conference which made him the first U.S. President to travel to Europe while in office. He was also the first U.S. President visiting the Pope in Rome (Italy). President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the 1920 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring peace to Europe.

Another U.S. President visiting Europe was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (32nd President of the United States from 1933 to 1945). Frequent trips to Europe made Roosevelt conversant in German and French.

Dwight David Eisenhower (34th President of the United States from 1953 to 1961) was the first U.S. President to travel by jet and helicopter. During World War II, he served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe visiting among others: Great Britain, France and Spain.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (35th President of the United States from 1961 to 1963) visited Europe a couple of times being in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Czechoslovakia. He also had one of the most memorable trips to Europe as his final trip before he was assassinated in 1963.

Questions:

  1. Do you think international trips are necessary?
  2. What are their advantages and disadvantages?
  3. Which countries were most valuable for U.S. Presidents at these times?

P.S.: In upcoming parts I'm going to talk about Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama, so please hold up with your comments about them.

Sources:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

Posted by at

10 comments:

  1. kniaz1 June 2011 at 15:05

    I am not interested in politics so much, especially when it comes to U.S. policy... I guess that in politics international trips are very necessary to hold good relationship with other countries and help to develop foreign economic relations, import and export by signing international agreements.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Krzysztof Wołk5 June 2011 at 05:41

    1,2. I believe that trips are not necessary, but are strongly adviced if you want to make a good business like gaining access to shale gas. You can always bribe the Prime Minister behind the curtains and get what as unavailable in formal way.
    3. Those with prospering natural recources (us).

    ReplyDelete
  3. s41375 June 2011 at 10:56

    In my opinion trips are an integrated part of politics. As we already know presided has nothing in common with rules, leads and govern. President is to represent country somewhere outside... and hard to represent anything just sitting in a one place. But trips have to be planned carefully and smart. It's a small line between reasonable politics and abuse of a power.

    Disadvantages? Money, for sure. All that trips are taken from our taxes. So we are sponsors of a leader travelling.
    Every country with strategical meaning. Of course those with natural resources too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. asia engel5 June 2011 at 11:02

    1. If you need to establish good relationship with someone, travelling is essential. I believe that nothing can replace personal contact. Every successful businessman would confirm that :) In past decades international trips were bigger effort than now. Especially flying is easier, faster and more safe.
    Another thing is that if you have such a strong position as USA, you can be sure that smaller players will fly to to you, so you don't need to visit them so often ;)

    2. A I said, personal contact is very important. Also, if you are on the place, you can estimate situation more clearly. The biggest disadvantage is leaving your country and loosing influence on things that are there.

    3. Looking at the past trips that you have written about, it seems that UK, France, Germany and Italy were most important. In these times Asian potential was rather underestimated in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TomekP5 June 2011 at 12:57

    Of course I think that international trip are necessary especially when we talk about U.S. presidents.
    When it comes about advantages: During these trips, president shows that he and U.S. are close with other countries.
    And disadvantages - United States remains without their president:D
    I don't know which countries are more valuable for U.S. presidents. This is question for him

    ReplyDelete
  6. s45045 June 2011 at 12:57

    I think that everything important has already been said. Each of you is right in what you say but to me all this stuff being made by politicians like shaking hands, silly smiles and pat on the back is at least foolish. I mean words are not everything..
    Unfortunately we can’t usually see anything more than just empty words during such trips. So I think it’s more about politicians image than real benefits for all of us.

    Politics is quite heavy topic so I would recommend this movie for relaxation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAxRQdpALSY haha, enjoy

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michał Opoka5 June 2011 at 13:13

    1,2) If you talk about international politics then not at all, they are just for 'propaganda' purposes.
    3) As always - countries allied with U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  8. s64765 June 2011 at 13:43

    International visits are usually the last point of negotiations of matters which have been carefully decided on a much lower level of administration.

    If signing a protocol of a finished matter isn't part of such a visit, it is only political propaganda. 'Creating reality in real time', without help from any experts and sometimes even without basic knowledge of geography can end up just like the conference in Jalta. We had to bear with the effects of these decisions in Poland up to year 1989.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michał Rapińczuk6 June 2011 at 10:03

    I think international trips are necessary for countries which do not have a strong political position. Even though USA is a tactical partner for Poland there were only a handful of American politicians visits to Poland. Still I consider personal contact to be worthy costs and time spent on international visits. As it's been already mentioned, nowadays means of transportation are very effective and it's much easier to organise long trips.

    The main advantage is that personal contact builds up relation, as a result further meetings can be more productive and open.

    I agree with Asia Engel regarding the most valuable partners for the USA. It's for sure the wealthiest but also the most politically active countries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sebastian Zebrowski s518612 June 2011 at 13:46

    >1. Do you think international trips are necessary?

    Nope. For me it is just waste of time and money. I guess that if president is going on the trip, he/she? is just bored sitting in his/her? office. :)

    >2. What are their advantages and disadvantages?

    I cannot see any advantages.
    Some of the cons:
    * waste of taxpayer's money
    * waste of time
    * waste of environment (because unnecessary traveling by planes, etc.)
    * if visiting president or host president makes some faux pas it could led to deterioration in diplomatic relations
    * the president could be victim of assassination because of the worse security


    >3. Which countries were most valuable for U.S. >Presidents at these times?
    Rich countries such us GB. :)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)