<P> This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies . The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere . The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to "Field a missile defense system as a shield against accidental missile launches or limited missile strikes by' international outlaws"' and also must "Find ways to integrate the' new democracies' of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S. - led system". The National Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words . "This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still - classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs ." </P> <P> Finally, Robert David English, writing in Foreign Affairs, observes that in addition to the deployment U.S. missile defenses, the DPG's second recommendation has also been proceeding on course . "Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests ." </P> <P> In United States history, critics have charged that presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad . Critics have also charged that the U.S. helped local militaries overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances . Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad . Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations . Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive ." Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries . </P> <P> Professor Paul W. Drake argued that the U.S. first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932 . Drake argued that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictatorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things ." The study suggested that efforts to promote democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and cannot be forcibly imposed . There was disagreement about what constituted democracy; Drake suggested American leaders sometimes defined democracy in a narrow sense of a nation having elections; Drake suggested a broader understanding was needed . Further, there was disagreement about what constituted a "rebellion"; Drake saw a pattern in which the U.S. State Department disapproved of any type of rebellion, even so - called "revolutions", and in some instances rebellions against dictatorships . Historian Walter LaFeber stated, "The world's leading revolutionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century ." </P>

Who carries out diplomatic activity and runs the american embassies