Foreign policy is a major responsibility of the President, and it encompasses many different aspects. Negotiating treaties is one part that is shared with congress, which must give its approval. Appointing ambassadors, whether to friendly nations, enemies, or organizations like the UN, are somewhat more important. Although approval by the senate is required, most often a President is allowed his choices, and his selection of any individual is critical. Since ambassadors also represent the nation as well as the President, they must be persons of good character, loyal to the President and the nation, and have good diplomatic skills. The President also conducts foreign policy personally, visiting world leaders, and wielding the powerful tools of American economic and military might.
Most agree that American foreign policy should place the interest of America first. Naturally, there is often disagreement about what actions might further or inhibit those interests and whether on some occassions, a concession of some sort would pay other, more beneficial dividends later on. This give and take are a normal part of international dealings just as they are in most other areas of life, from your job to raising your children. Therefore, what is necessary to a successful foreign policy for our nation is to have the right principles as its foundation! A foreign policy established upon such principles will work in the nation's favor over the long run, despite what might be construed as missteps, errors, or concessions. Things change in the world, leaders come and go, natural disasters occur, and wars erupt at times, and yes, mistakes are made. A steadfast foreign policy correctly thought out and implemented however, will serve our country best.
Teddy Roosevelt is famously known for his "walk softly and carry a big stick" philosophy, and in those times of pure American dominance, it worked very well. In today's world of the global economy, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and changing demographics, however, that philosophy strictly applied would not be the best approach without some modifications. It does have its uses however, such as our invasion of Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks.
After WWII, America's foreign policy followed a path of rewarding other nations with economic and military aid if they were deemed sufficiently anti-communist, even when the country's ruler proved less than ideal in other ways. Supporting allies wherever they could be found seemed like a good idea, but sometimes caused hostilities to the U.S. that later backfired. Iran is a good example of that policy, where we supported the Shah and then found he was not well liked by the people. In the end, we abandoned the Shah and wound up with the current Islamic theocracy that has become a huge problem because of its nuclear weapons activities. Interestingly enough, this regime is not all that popular with the people either. This time, we are not in the position to do anything about that directly, unless we choose war. Other options are international diplomatic and economic pressure. For these two tracks to work they will require the support of China and Russia, and at this point in time neither seems willing to participate.
The situation in Iraq is a result of a blend of all three approaches to foreign policy. For many years the United States supported Saddam Hussein, gratefully supplying him with the weapons to fight Iran. After his invasion of Kuwait, we used military power to repel his invasion but not remove him from power. Economic, diplomatic, and limited military measures were the applied to keep him in line. Once he was percieved to be a potential WMD threat however, we decided upon direct military power to remove him. Now we have a situation similar to the earlier Iran scenario; we abandoned an old ally only to find ourselves unpopular with certain elements who would like to establish a terror based theocracy.
President Bush has added another dimension to our foreign policy, that of encouraging democracy, an endeavor that is often derided for being too reminiscent of President Woodrow Wilson. President Reagan also used this tactic, but that was still in the days of the cold war. The interesting part of that approach is that it only appears to work if there is war. Nicaragua, Grenada, Afghanistan, and Iraq (the last two not yet decided) all needed a war to change. Egypt is an example of a nation that receives huge amounts of economic and military aid, but because we did not go to war with it, remains a dictatorship.
President Kennedy proudly proclaimed to the world that the United States would "bear any burden and pay any price in the defense of liberty". Once again, the policy was to resist communism and build democracy. The repercussions of the Viet Nam War are still with us today. In the end it was another abandoned ally and in this case, a democracy that did not happen. A divided China, the Korean stalemate, the end of the Soviet Union, even Venezuela, all of these nations have turned out quite differently than we had hoped. As we look at these varying results of American foreign policy, there is one common thread apparent, that the United States intervened in the affairs of other nations in an attempt to produce an outcome it felt was desirable. You have to ask the question, did it work out well?
George Washington, the acknowledged Father of our country wisely warned against foreign entanglements. A great deal of his success was his ability to understand human nature and the unwillingness of people to change. He faced those challenges as he fought the British, and he knew well that in nations around the world, people are no different. For America to become involved with other nations other than on a normal trade relationship, would expose the country to the vicissitudes of people whose value to the security of America was non-existent.
From the minds of our founding fathers came a most unique result, a nation born in liberty where the government derives its power from the people. The wisdom that resided in that special group of individuals cannot easily be passed on to others. It can be proclaimed, it can be demonstrated, it can be an example to others, but it cannot be enforced. Nor, for that matter, can it even be guaranteed to continue if the inheritors of it do not actively work to protect it.
A great deal of the current world conditions can be attributed to the idea that the world can be ordered according to the whims of America. Our foreign policy approaches have been designed with that goal in mind. Indeed, they are the result of power in the hands of internationalists in both the Democrat and Republican parties who innately believe in the ultimate goal of one world government. How else could you explain the musings of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who stated that OUR Constitution should be interpreted in light of the laws of other nations? Did you hear any denunciations from our political elites? The two parties have been steadily accumulating power, and have now reached the position of believing themselves invulnerable to the will of the people and able to ignore the Constitution and rule of law. Unless and until we break the hold these two parties have on power, they will continue to promote this type of ideology at the expense of the nation. They will continue to exhalt the corrupt United Nations to a position of influence undeserved, while curtailing American sovereignty.
American foreign policy should not be one of intervening in the affairs of other nations. It should be a policy that will always stand for freedom and promote that idea, but it cannot be one that tries to force the outcome. We will trade with other nations, work together on common goals such as protecting the environment, eliminating human trafficking, fighting terrorism, and of aiding situations where hunger and disease are destroying life. In no way however, should we seek to dictate what kind of government a nation should adopt. In applying these guidelines, the United States should not provide economic or military aid to ruthless dictators to buy their support. All aid programs should be carefully constructed so as to benefit the people directly and avoid lining the pockets of tyrants. Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian people stand as a clear example of such lack of foresight on our part.
America needs a foreign policy that acknowledges its superior form of government and its committment to freedom of the individual. It should be one that encourages those ideals of The Declaration of Independence. In no way however, should our foreign policy surrender our sovereignty to some form of internationalism and nor seek to impose our will on others. If we elect another elite from either party, we will guarantee a future of more big government, less personal freedom, and further influence to the internationalist cabal that hates America. In addition, we will strenghthen the belief of both parties that they are indeed invulnerable to the will of the people and free to pursue their own agenda. We cannot afford to have that happen, can we?
|
|
