Foreign policy must not be foreign

sowstochd

sowstochd

Active member
Often when we (the public) think about foreign policy it is closed off

to us as a subset of gov that we are incapable of grasping, whether it

be because we think it is too complex, or we think "why should we get

involved in other people's business?" or that we don't understand/care

how it affects us. But then we wonder why people in other parts of the

world think we are ignorant to these issues. Is it that we don't care?

don't know? i don't think so, b/c we automatically pay attention to

issues that directly affect us. So the problem isn't failure to

understand other people/countries, etc. But its the, ok not failure.

relative incompetence lets say, to acknowledge how these issues affect

us. If we want to keep up in a world that is undeniably globalizing,

and just for the sake of proper citizenship, we (the people) have to

make better progress in understanding our countries foreign policy, and

make better use of our rights to voice opinions and discuss. We don't

elect leaders to make decisions for us, or at least that isn't what we

should be thinking when we go to the polls, we elect them b/c

representative government is more efficient. But if we want change or

better understanding of something it has got to start with us. Im not

going to make this a thread about Barack Obama, and i request that you

respect that, but im just going to use him as an example for something.

This whole transparency thing that he's doing, transparency in

government is a great idea. Not only does it look good for him b/c he

looks more engaged in affairs and not behind the scenes and all that.

But for us, the public. Makes issues more current, more relavent in our

day. So thats good eh? we seem to be becoming more attentive to this.

even in about the 10 days he's been president, ok great, transparency,

big deal. But think about it, a few more months of this and we are

creating a more globally literate public instead of making all of these

foundations and programs that very little people would go to, etc, you

know what i mean, this is more efficient, b/c we're using the news as a

good medium cuz obviously thers a wider audiance.

Im in highschool, and im lucky that i go away every summer to visit

turkey, i'm exposed to a different culture, yea thats cool i guess. But

what about kids/people who dont have the chance to do that. Stuff like

Model UN is great. I'm not trying to sound like your guidance counselor

or anything trying to get you to do this stuff, but im just trying to

convey that this kind of stuff is important if we are to achieve what

was said in the 1st paragraph.

I went to a dinner of the American Committee on Foreign Relations

tonight, a guy named Kenton Keith, former U.S ambassador to Qatar was

talking about how to better use diplomacy as a tool, and it kind of led

to this in my mind when i was thinking about it.

Isn't it true that if you understand/care about cultures you will begin

to make connections with them, and perhaps more importantly acknowledge

the differences and learn interesting things? won't understanding lead

to respect? won't this lead to solving problems? this doesn't/shouldn't

seem to be a revolutionary idea, i mean we can all kind of realize how

understanding leads to respect and all that fluff. So why don't we do

it? i mean come on someone needs to reach out. maybe politicians don't

know that we are able to do this. so what the hell lets do something i

mean we aren't incapable. There are people like you,

for those of you thinking that you're just one person, you can't do it

on your own, etc. do research my friends! ask around! I mean when you

dont know what is going on, policies are going to be made on out behalf

whether we like it or not, thats how our government is set up. But

obviously the more say we have in it the better. and certainly the more

the policies reflect the beleifs of the people the better the true

ideals of this country is conveyed to another. This brings about change

in the people, which is more important than change in the government.

It is more important to know about the people of another country than

about their government. and vice versa, b/c government (should) reflect

the views of the people. So when another country has some bad policy

towards us, we say oh ______ians are a bunch of jerks. No they're not,

b/c first of all naturally without any stimulus no human wishes bad on

another random person/people across the ocean. Our views of others are

unfortunately clouded by misinterpretations of their governments. and

so the same goes for us. I am not bashing gov. by any means, im not

anti-establishment, or anarchist or anything. In fact im saying/trying

to say that we should have a greater understanding of others, more

participation in these kinds of activities programs. i mean there's a

ton of them. I as a citizen would rather have a more understanding,

cultured, and willing to solve problemness country than have the best

political philosophers/plan out every scenario of foreign affairs

possible. cuz obviously it doesn't make sense to come up with a policy

on something that is always changing/hasen't even happened yet. Plus

naturally we want to stick with that to look strong/firm etc, which can

lead to ignorance in policy making which doesn't really set the mood if

we want countries to look over/reform their policies as well. So i mean

it has to start with the people, the gov would say no we wont change

that, or, no we wont do that. But if we the public think, hey that's

not a bad idea, or hey i wouldnt mind that if it got this issue solved,

then it can happen. Honestly im confident that we as a people, or those

who take what i've written the right way, can make a difference, and

make it happen.
 
To answer all of your rhetorical questions: No.

I stand behind the Bush Doctrine of neo-realism in that preemptive interaction is necessary and the cold war policy of containment and deterrence are obselete. You have a liberalist approach in that you believe states on the international stage act with morals, economic goals, peace, and mutual benefits in mind. While one could argue that some states have that luxury, I.E. solely the United States of America, almost every other state out there is just trying to secure sovereignty (i.e. solely through the development of military force and the exertion thereof).

If you like realist theory, theres a lot on it, but in my eyes at least, its how shit happens on the global stage. Think of it this way: even including states as undeniably powerful and secure as the United States of America act in a way to increase its own physical security. The "West" is relatively peaceful because it has reached a situtation conducive to peace: The US has become a hegemon in its own region (north america) and is so powerful and dominant that every established state on the face of the nation pretty much bows down to us. Canada and Mexico would never even think of doing anything agains the USA. Now, as a global hegemon, the USA must make sure that there is no hegemon in another region, creating a competitor (e.g. USSR). Thus, we are always interested in creating two or more very powerful states in each region through alliance and trade. For example, in europe we are undoubtedly better allies with the British and German than the rest. It is for a reason: this way Britain and Germany contain the rest of europe with economic and military dominance, while still being of roughly equal status; there is no one single super dominating force. The same with China and japan and south korea.

Now for the middle east: i dont care what bullshit rhetoric you have defending or attacking the war in iraq. Despite all the liberating this sunni that shiite him unilateral her, the main reason for entering iraq, albeit to the masses and public rather under the radar, was to 1 eliminate a potentially hegemonic enemy, and 2 provide an extensionary position for our forces incase we would ever need to defend, preemptively or otheriwse, against states in the region. Plain and simple. 90% of everythign that happens in international relations is realist.

And lets face it: the middle east is primitive. None of the states there act diplomaticaly or forcefully for completely moral, economic, or other liberalist reasons. They fight to preserve, or in some cases, obtain sovereignty.

Long story short: do i think opening up and being that friendly dominant force is going to be effective in rooting out terrorism and promoting peace? No. States that right now are disrupting the peace are the ones vying for more power and are unhappy with their current status regionally and globably. Being transparent and nice isnt gonna help. While the bush doctrine created a lot of anti american sentiment, unfornately, is still the best method for securing America's and the world's interests and peace.

 
I respect your opinion, hell i should im a republican. I didn't make this thread to bash bush policies, nor did i say anything about the war in iraq. i feel like your accusing me of some things, just to get it out i agree that with some countries there is very little diplomatic opportunities to work things out, i agree that there comes a time when diplomatic attempts are no use. I wrote to promote more participation in government, and im promoting not a better understanding of the muslim world, the war, etc. But the war as a whole, so i don't want to steer this thread towards talking about the war on terror/iraq/afghanistan. But in regarding the war in iraq/afghanistan, yes i understand imperialism and all that, if we don't have somehwat large power in an area than someone else will (hence another hegemonic power in the middle east) and i know that if we dont go and tell people what to do then some other country will and it will not be in our best interest. I am not really talking about our current foreign policy, but how foreign policy is shaped as a whole, and i am saying that people should have more say/participation/interaction in it, b.c at least then we will be conveying the actual ideas of the american people to other countries and not a bunch of ivy league pricks in offices in washington. Basically im saying that we the public have a civic duty to be a part of a kind of policy that is going to reflect on us as a people no matter what, b/c other countries view the gov. and people as on, so if another gov. has a bad policy towards, us we make the generalization that it is wholly backed by the people, and i think the best way to do this is to become educated about other countries, people, etc.
 
what are you trying to say exactly?

you admit that motives for iraq are superficial on the surface, but then defend it as "realist"?
 


realist is a school of thought in international relations.

it is 1 of 2 major schools of though.

realism- all states vie for power and physical security

liberalism- states act and vie primarily for power and physical security, but

diplomacy, relations, economy, identity, and of course moral fiber play a

large role.

what im trying to say is that our current obama policy of opening up and

talking things out isnt going to work in a region that is primarily dominated

by realist IR. The middle east, eastern europe, and western asia aren't going

to respond to diplomacy the way other countries will.

What im trying to say is that we should continue our course along the Bush

doctrine because middle eastern "states" arent going to respond to

diplomacy the way western countries do.

Anti-american sentiment is a cost we must be willing to endure if we want to

promote peace and security, at least by our (the western world's) definitions.

After all, "States" in the middle east are all trying to vie for

power in a realist way, while at the same time, islamic radicals and huge

nations of people such as the Kurds or Palistinians or sunnies or shiites all

fight against each other, and often their very own governmental and state

counterparts, in a liberalist fashion, waging war upon religious and moral

fundamentals.

That type of fighting can only be remedied by two ways: let

them fight it out themselves, or have an overseeing actor, that will act as a

moderating government with legitimate coercive force that can establish peace.

In other words, lets be honest, nothing in the middle east

can be talked out. Its human nature to want power and that is what drives the

states, governments, regimes etc. On the flip side, the Islamic facists are

fighting based on fundamental beliefs that can’t be changed with discussion. Couple

that with the fact that every kid and their grandmother in the middle east

wants their own state now (Kosovo im lookin at you), theres just no even sided

diplomatic way of solving this long term.

The only way to diplomatically solve this situation is for

the USA to act as the worlds single superpower as it is with the cooperation of

other countries or not, and to essentially moderate the middle east backing it

up with coercive military force.

The reason theres so much chaos down there is that there is

no superpower exerting its interests in the region. Seeing as how the USA is

the world’s only hegemon now, it has to be us that does the dirty work. After

all, other states are so small and inferior economically and militarily that

they have their own interests to pursue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top