|
Zonie63 -> RE: NYT: Grading Obama's Foreign Policy (5/20/2014 10:32:58 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Here are some specific proposals that could form the basis of a new US foreign policy. This list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. There are many other principles and policies that could be included in a saner and more successful US foreign policy:
1. The underlying principles of US foreign policy to be Peace, Reciprocity (treating all countires the way the US would like to be treated by all), Promotion of Human Rights and Constructive Engagement with all countries that share this approach;
Agreed. These ideas already have precedence in America's foreign policy, similar to Wilson's Fourteen Points, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and the UN Charter and Declarations on Human Rights. It obviously hasn't been followed consistently, but at least on paper, I don't see how any US ideologue could seriously oppose it.
quote:
2. Security and Military Alliances, Favourable Trading Status etc. offered only to countries that practice democracy, the rule of law, observe and respect human rights ie share the same principles set out in 1. Armaments sales to be restricted to same;
This is tricky, as these kinds of proposals get the usual opposition from interventionists, corporations which outsource, or anyone who ostensibly benefits from our current relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia or China (which do not practice democracy or respect human rights). This is why I usually chuckle whenever certain hawkish interventionists decry various dovish proposals as "weak," "wimpy," or "cowardly" (or even worse, "unpatriotic" and "un-American"), while they have neither the scruples nor the backbone to make any kind of principled stand for human rights.
quote:
3. Recognition that the best long term basis for world peace is freedom and prosperity, that it is in the US's and world's best interests for all countries to prosper economically. The US to adopt strategic postures and trading policies that incorporate this view.
I agree, although this is clearly the greatest challenge we face, since we're quite a long way from world-wide prosperity. Considering the kind of greedy tightwads we have among America's elite, they howl and bitterly complain about sharing a bit of prosperity with even their own people. I sometimes wonder if they even want a free and prosperous America, let alone a free and prosperous world.
Other concerns such as global warming and other environmental matters could create problems and barriers to global prosperity. A potential world-wide scramble and fight over dwindling resources could be in our future. In order to achieve world prosperity and a better standard of living, it will require greater infrastructure, industry, a reliable food distribution system, more railroads, trucks, cars, with all or most of the housing with fixed plumbing, electricity, heat, air conditioning, etc. This will have an environmental impact and could also increase global warming, as well as accelerate the consumption of resources.
So, it's probably the greatest challenge we face, as a world. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile challenge, and I think that humanity's most brilliant minds could likely get together and figure it all out, provided that they're given the freedom to do so.
quote:
4. Disavow the notion of unilateral policing/military action in favour of Multilateralism. Consign the role of world policeman to the UN. Except for 3 above, any overseas military engagements only through the UN;
Agreed, although about the UN, some reform might be needed within that organization as well. One thing that might be tried is increasing the size of the Security Council and the number of nations with a permanent veto. Another possibility is to make it an elected body.
quote:
5. Abandon the notion of US exceptionalism, that it has a unique role or status in the world. The US is special in many respects but in the final analysis it is but one nation among the c200 nations in today's world. Instead, promote the universal adoption of these principles to ensure long term peace prosperity and mutual respect between all nations.
My complaint about U.S. exceptionalism is that it has the effect of saddling America with various "obligations" and "commitments" which we don't really need and which have no logical or practical benefit for America's defense or well-being.
Some war hawks and interventionists worry about the U.S. appearing "weak," and seem to imply that our role in the world is somehow indispensable, that "if we don't do it, nobody will." This may be related to U.S. exceptionalism, but it also seems to reveal that they can't properly gauge how America is perceived by the outside world.
About 30 years ago, I saw a speech given by G. Gordon Liddy, in which he mostly discussed foreign policy. He opened by informing the audience that the outside world is not a nice and comfortable place like America. It's not like Beverly Hills or Palm Springs, but he said that the rest of the world was like the South Bronx. He seemed to be painting with a broad brush, but his implied conclusion was that much of the rest of the world was quite dangerous, ostensibly run by thugs, criminals, and other evil people who spend every waking moment plotting to destroy America and all that we stand for. His general message was that the only way for America to survive was to build up our military and flex our muscle. It's the idea that we can't show weakness and that "force is the only language our enemies understand."
I won't deny that America has always had a certain xenophobic taint to our foreign policy, particularly in the past when we were more neutral in our approach to world affairs. However, we seem to have turned that xenophobia into a form of demonization of selected factions/governments in the world, making them appear as "evil" in the eyes of Americans. That's the whole problem, because in theory, everyone claims to want peace. But as long as the perception that there's all this "evil" in the world that "America must stop," then U.S. foreign policy may be stuck on this course.
I think that we really need to take a more realistic and rational look at the outside world. I think Americans need to keep up and informed on world events and try to understand the history, background, and cultures of the various nations and regions we deal with. I'm not saying that the world is full of angels, and we might have to take a necessary guarded approach with some nations and governments. After all, these are politicians we're dealing with here.
|
|
|
|
