The International Court of Justice at The Hague in Netherlands is an independent international organization, governed by the Rome Stature. It has directive to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It provides accountability for those culpable of committing atrocities and those who order such crime. Under the rule of law, the ICC provides justice to victims, families and communities of crimes against humanity. The court place a distinguished set of rights to victims, unprecedented in international justice.
I believe that the ICC is very relevant and play a major role in contributing to international justice, peace and stability. The ICC rule to arrest Libya’s president Qaddafi is the first time that the United States and China (both countries are not ICC party) have used their permanent Security Council vote to refer the situation to the ICC for investigation. This exemplifies the general recognition of the importance of the ICC in collective justice.
The biggest challenges that ICC faces is its inability to secure arrests, since it does not have its own police and depends on member states for that task. Also, many countries that are not ICC signatories refuse to help the international community in arresting alleged criminals to face trial. An example is President Bashir of Sudan, who has a warrant arrest and has visited many countries since then, including China. Also, many criticize the ICC because leaders of powerful nations are not being investigated for being linked to such crimes. However, I disagree with that affirmation. We cannot denied justice to some because the international community might not be able to trial all persons who commit crime against humanity. ICC is a relatively new institution that has a potential with time to be a very effective vehicle of international justice.
As US citizens, we should encourage our government to be ICC party and work within the court to reform the necessary provisions to make it effective.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Rwanda and Darfur
The international community has condemned the horrendous crimes against civilian in Rwanda and Darfur and the Security Council admitted their failure in addressing the genocide. President Clinton declared in 1998 in a visit to Kigali “It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror” (1). The UN received harsh criticism for not being able to effectively intervene and prevent millions of deaths in both crises. Lack of political will and support from member states contributed to the UN inability to carry out peacekeeping missions, even with a Security Council approval. It is prudent to affirm after the genocides, with more million casualties in Rwanda alone, that the UN did not fulfill its duties and complete responsibilities to protect the lives of individuals and maintain international peace and security.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Tthe international community ignored its mandate in both conflicts (Rwanda and Darfur). Rwanda’s civil war unfolded under the UN’s key members closed eyes. They refused to admit, regardless of information from the ground that the genocide was occurring. The minority Tutsi and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by the Hutus extremist militias backed by the Hutu government after the Tutsi rebels assassination of Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana . Peacekeeping troops from UNAMIR that were present in the country since the year before were significantly reduced during the conflict due to increasing violence on the ground and only served to help foreigners to leave the country, abandoning the minority to defend themselves on their own. Refugee camps were not properly protected and the killings continued to occur there too. The humanitarian crisis deteriorated quickly the civilians were victimized being brutality tortured, raped, mass murdered resulting in an ethnic cleansing situation. Only after the Rwanda Patriotic Front, the Tutsi rebels gained grounds with their offensive strategy that the genocide came to an end. However, with limited support, the genocide had already claimed almost one million lives. In Sudan, the violence is still part of their daily lives and the ongoing genocide is still occurring. The Sudanese government with President Bashir still in power after the ICC condemned him of crime against humanity, it keep providing arms to Janjaweed militia who in turn increasingly commits atrocious terror and crimes in the Darfur region generating a refuge crises and destabilizing bordering countries. As Susan Rice declared “we (US) have no comprehensive strategy for stopping the killings.”(2)
In my view, peacekeeping forces have an essential role to play in international crises. The UN has legitimacy from the international community in its work to preserve global security and stability and protecting civilians when they are most vulnerable throughout crises. Peacekeeping missions are believed to be the victims’ last hope and resort. This is a huge task and the UN has the possibility to make immense difference whether conflicts will be resolved or not and whether crimes against humanity where citizens’ human rights violations are stopped or not. However, if the UN finds the morally right political will to authorize a peacekeeping mission, it is the responsibility of member states to resource it effectively to obtain positive outcomes. The world cannot afford to revive the situation in Rwanda. We said “no more” after WWII and again after the genocide in Rwanda. However, there are many humanitarian crises happening today where peacekeeping missions are necessary to ensure protection of innocent civilians. Sudan is still very unstable and now the situation in Somalia is critically deteriorating due to the famine and political instability. In Somalia, 29000 children had died so far in the past few months. Developed countries need to drop the rhetoric and provide substantial funds and support for the UNDPKO and comprehensive long term development plan created together with leaders of these countries to be able to avoid human rights crises.
Key influential states in the UN tend to see humanitarian crises through a political lens. That must to be change if the UN wants to fulfill its obligation to guarantee human security. A dose of empathy towards the least protected human citizens would serve good to correct the problems faced by UNDPKO. Good intentions enough do not solve humanitarian crises. Serious commitment to Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding should be a UN priority. Saving innocent civilian lives is morally and ethically the right action by the international community. Nothing should prevent that task to be accomplished whether is race discrimination, how leaders perceive the worth of other people lifes, economic and political interests and neocolonialism. As found in the Lessons from Rwanda, The United Nations and the prevention of Genocide, “Following the Millennium Report, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (set up by the Canadian government) issued a report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect”. The report found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders. It proposed that where a State fails to protect people -- either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness -- the responsibility shifts to the broader international community.”(3)
Notes:
1-) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/03/25/world/main5798.shtml (Text of President Clinton's address to genocide survivors at the airport in Kigali, Rwanda, as provided by the White House)
2-) Rourke, John T. 2010 Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Fifteenth Edition (McGraw-Hill) Page 167
3-) http://www.un.org/preventgenocide/rwanda/responsibility.shtml (Responsibility to Protect)
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Tthe international community ignored its mandate in both conflicts (Rwanda and Darfur). Rwanda’s civil war unfolded under the UN’s key members closed eyes. They refused to admit, regardless of information from the ground that the genocide was occurring. The minority Tutsi and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by the Hutus extremist militias backed by the Hutu government after the Tutsi rebels assassination of Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana . Peacekeeping troops from UNAMIR that were present in the country since the year before were significantly reduced during the conflict due to increasing violence on the ground and only served to help foreigners to leave the country, abandoning the minority to defend themselves on their own. Refugee camps were not properly protected and the killings continued to occur there too. The humanitarian crisis deteriorated quickly the civilians were victimized being brutality tortured, raped, mass murdered resulting in an ethnic cleansing situation. Only after the Rwanda Patriotic Front, the Tutsi rebels gained grounds with their offensive strategy that the genocide came to an end. However, with limited support, the genocide had already claimed almost one million lives. In Sudan, the violence is still part of their daily lives and the ongoing genocide is still occurring. The Sudanese government with President Bashir still in power after the ICC condemned him of crime against humanity, it keep providing arms to Janjaweed militia who in turn increasingly commits atrocious terror and crimes in the Darfur region generating a refuge crises and destabilizing bordering countries. As Susan Rice declared “we (US) have no comprehensive strategy for stopping the killings.”(2)
In my view, peacekeeping forces have an essential role to play in international crises. The UN has legitimacy from the international community in its work to preserve global security and stability and protecting civilians when they are most vulnerable throughout crises. Peacekeeping missions are believed to be the victims’ last hope and resort. This is a huge task and the UN has the possibility to make immense difference whether conflicts will be resolved or not and whether crimes against humanity where citizens’ human rights violations are stopped or not. However, if the UN finds the morally right political will to authorize a peacekeeping mission, it is the responsibility of member states to resource it effectively to obtain positive outcomes. The world cannot afford to revive the situation in Rwanda. We said “no more” after WWII and again after the genocide in Rwanda. However, there are many humanitarian crises happening today where peacekeeping missions are necessary to ensure protection of innocent civilians. Sudan is still very unstable and now the situation in Somalia is critically deteriorating due to the famine and political instability. In Somalia, 29000 children had died so far in the past few months. Developed countries need to drop the rhetoric and provide substantial funds and support for the UNDPKO and comprehensive long term development plan created together with leaders of these countries to be able to avoid human rights crises.
Key influential states in the UN tend to see humanitarian crises through a political lens. That must to be change if the UN wants to fulfill its obligation to guarantee human security. A dose of empathy towards the least protected human citizens would serve good to correct the problems faced by UNDPKO. Good intentions enough do not solve humanitarian crises. Serious commitment to Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding should be a UN priority. Saving innocent civilian lives is morally and ethically the right action by the international community. Nothing should prevent that task to be accomplished whether is race discrimination, how leaders perceive the worth of other people lifes, economic and political interests and neocolonialism. As found in the Lessons from Rwanda, The United Nations and the prevention of Genocide, “Following the Millennium Report, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (set up by the Canadian government) issued a report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect”. The report found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within its borders. It proposed that where a State fails to protect people -- either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness -- the responsibility shifts to the broader international community.”(3)
Notes:
1-) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/03/25/world/main5798.shtml (Text of President Clinton's address to genocide survivors at the airport in Kigali, Rwanda, as provided by the White House)
2-) Rourke, John T. 2010 Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Fifteenth Edition (McGraw-Hill) Page 167
3-) http://www.un.org/preventgenocide/rwanda/responsibility.shtml (Responsibility to Protect)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
In the post-Bush Era, America found itself in a world which is defined by the growing economic power of new global challengers such as China and India, the increasing discontent abroad about American uniletarism, the continued existence of Islamic fundamentalism as the chief national security treat and finally a Middle East in turmoil which is weary of American Interventionism in the region. In this context, there are conflictual views about the future of American Foreign Policy. While some scholars find the American international aspiration for global hegemonic leadership dangerous and call for a more “restrained” national security agenda, others urge the US to strengthen frameworks of international cooperation and restore the institutional foundations of US leadership in the world. Still others scholars emphasize the role of morality in the US foreign policy and finally there is a growing concern that the international field might witness an ear of conflict between Western democracies and rising autocratic power such as China and Russia. Which view (or views) do you think provide the most realistic and convincing assessment of the future of American Foreign Policy? Why? Justify answer with specific examples.
Since its birth, American has being engaged in expansion from the original colonies to its continental conquest and its projected influence throughout the globe. From the beginning of last century, America fought many wars and militarily intervened in all corners of the world. As Americans, we see ourselves as the beacon of freedom, the people who were chosen with the mission to spread the Good News that if the world follows our example, peace, democratic freedom and prosperity will prevail. With the election of President Obama in 2008, Americans sent a message to the international community that they were ready for a change. Americans were ready to tell the world that our approach to global leadership would be re-evaluated and the days of military intervention to project our power were counted. The pre-emptive Iraq invasion and the Bush’s administration mismanagement of both wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) had caused Americans great economic and political distress (not to mention the destruction of both countries). It was time for American leadership to re-evaluate its entire foreign policies, the ways we conduct ourselves in the international arena and lead the world in solving social, economical and political issues. It came to time when we as a country had to re-evaluate our commitment to accordance with our means. Obama messages towards American’s engagement in the world brought hope that American were finally going to reverse its years of domination and start acting by what we preached. He would be the determined leader who would concentrate his effort in solving our most important national problems (economic crises, increasing deficit, comprehensive health care reform, better public education, renewable energy to diminish our dependency on foreign oil, etc) mostly caused by actions of his predecessor ambitions around the world. The Bush years taught us an important lesson: military intervention did not make American any safer and the results of use of armed force were very blurred. It was time to reverse the image of a deceitful imperialist empire. However, here we are three years after Obama’s election and still present in chaotic and unstable Iraq, with more troops in Afghanistan, involved in Libya, and Guantanamo still open. In my view, the preponderance of American military power makes it quasi irresistible for us to use military intervention in problems around the world, regardless of whoever is at the white house. As all previous US presidents, Obama too uses “American exceptionalism” to justify and sell to Americans and to the people of the world his intervention abroad. It is going to take serious re-evaluation of our priorities, nationally and internationally in order to correct the tract and show to the world that American does deserve the hegemonic leadership that it has until another power emerge to dispute its role.
With the end of the Cold War, America found them in a position of unchallenged power. Without competition it felt free to act in and outside the international system it had created in order guarantee world peace and stability and protects its own interest. This week’s IMF projection that by 2016 China might became the most prosperous economic power in the world, should give US Administration another wake up call, and re-structure its priorities. We cannot be compelling to act impulsive and foolish to every single disturbance around the world especially when they do not pose any strategic threats and when the international community is so wary of our interventions. We should not over estimate the threat of an American attack since it is clear to us and to the entire whole that whoever attacks us at home will face a certain total destruction.
Thus, the future of Contemporary American Foreign Policy in my view, should entertain a balanced combination of restrain and engagement in a reformulation of the international order to prioritize national security. I believe we are still leaving in a transition period trying to figure out what the post-Cold war world will look like. After reading the different essays of scholars using different theoretical views in Ikenberry American Foreign Policy, I conclude that we are reliving the years between 1943-1947 after the World War II when American leadership was in the process of discerning in establishing its vision of how the world order should look like, who would be her allies and trying to define its challenges in order to create a comprehensive policy. So the question is should we continue with the same order or would American transform the order it created entirely? I do not think that there is an answer right now. Lilia Shevtsova states “it is not the quantity of action that counts, but the quality of the vision guiding those actions. The world needs a bold but viable new framework to deal with new global threats, and America in particular needs to reinvigorate the idea of liberal democracy and link it to the idea of global justice” (2) . However based on the past few years’ mistakes, I feel that American should move away from preemptive action mentality but at the same time engage in areas where an outside balancer is necessary to maintain regional order (Asia and Middle East) but using subtle tactics. A priority should be in place in order to bring legitimacy to International Organizations. This will require Americans leadership and also its commitment to abide by the rules of law and of the system. A serious reform of the strategy need to be based on reality of current world issues to combat the new challenges to global instability. A policy to include re-formulation of the Security Council by bringing new emerging powers in the decision making process where these countries will feel that there is a fair share of influence is of extreme importance. Leadership in Washington (both Congress and presidency) needs to move away from the mentality Cold War year. Even thought the threat of a terroristic attack is and will be present in the years to come, it cannot be the fundamental preoccupation of American national security and driver of our foreign policy strategy. Our insistence in intimidating to use military intervention in the Middle East will only exacerbate the threat. As Pose state in his The Case for Restraint “American is not nearly as powerful as it thinks it is, and therefore is unlikely to succeed in its ambitions plans to transform global politics through a hyper-activist policy.”(1) We need to review and renew our commitments to protect our allies in order to maintain our influential power but also to restore unstable regional orders. Instability in Asia (an exacerbated tension between China, Japan and Russia) or in Middle East (between Egypt, Israel, Syria) would have catastrophic results. As the invasion of Iraq showed us that military intervention to remove authoritarian government will not miracly transform a society into a working democracy.
If America wants to keep her hegemony in order to defend her interest, she needs to seriously try to reverse the Anti-Americanism sentiment in the world but especially from its most importantly allies. Also, the state Department needs to create programs of public diplomacy in countries where anti-Americanism sentiments are fervent. Humanitarian aid, social projects thru NGOs would help to send the message that Americans really desire to lead the world into prosperity. It would also take a re-evaluation of our most criticized commitments. It needs to get though with Israel not by cutting aid overnight, but by exercising its power and demand end of Israel occupation in Palestinian areas. It is important that we maintain our agenda in promoting our ideals: defending the protection of human rights, the support of civil society, freedom of speech and flow of information, the rules of law to all countries, especially in countries that considered our allies yet are ruled but government who practice the opposite (exempla Saudi Arabia).
It is in only welcoming the sharing of responsibility in the world leadership that United States will be able to achieve the vision of its Founding Fathers to create a world of peace and prosperity based on American creeds of freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011) Pages (1) 552 and (571)
Question 2
American foreign policy often appears to be an arena of conflict between the domestic and international forces. In the domestic realm, America confronts the corporate interests which call for greater space for economic issues in the US foreign policy, while the policy preferences of the mass public is an important concern for American foreign policy making in terms of providing the foreign policy choices with political legitimacy. The international system, on the other hand, because of its anarchic nature, imposes a certain type of behavior upon states which is defined primarily by self-help, safeguarding national security and power maximization. How do you evaluate the interaction of these forces in shaping the US foreign policy? In the light of your knowledge on US foreign policy choices throughout its history, do you see any pattern that prioritizes either of the forces or do you think that US foreign policy reflects more a mixture of the two? Justify your answer with specific examples.
I believe that American Foreign Policy is influenced by several forces (national and international) which shape the process of making and executing international relations. A mixture of the two forces worked and still works simultaneous in shaping policy throughout history. Nationally, scholars, the media, interest groups, public, policymakers, business leaders, and leaders influence directly or indirectly the development of policy. International developments also influence policies that are shaped and adapted in reaction to current affairs. Realistic scholars would argue that because the public do not have sufficient knowledge to understand the international arena, the democratic process (since leaders will have to comply with public demands in other to be re-elected) affect the quality of policies and suffer from efficiency. The Kioto Protocol is an example of problems where interest group can negatively prevent and influence the US leadership to approve measurements towards policies that would benefit the international community. Business corporations also influence policy makers by supporting or not their campaign with financial resources. In Business Versus Public Influence in US Foreign Policy, Lawrence R Jacobs and Benjamin Page assert “business has a strong consistent and at times lopsided influence upon US foreign policy.”
The process of the evolution of the American foreign policy and its national identity has to be analyzed in an historical context of its international relations understanding that its international actions started in the formation of the nation. The origin of US power, ideals and the vision of the projection of its influence globally began with the revolutionary movement. Based on this understanding, I conclude that all actual premises of its foreign policies that proscribe American actions in the international system are consequences of precedent political constructions that were and are based on unyielding traditions and principles from the creation of the nation in the 18th century. These traditions defined past international relations, are defining the current policies and will probably continue to define the future ones. This is not to say that American policies of the 18th century are exactly the same as the policies of today. Thus, it has been shaped and adapted to fit the current national and global challenges and constraints, but the core priorities and goals of its vision and actions have remained true to the American Creed. The belief that the republic is the beacon of freedom and democracy, and the exceptional mission of Americans in the world can be found in speeches of all presidents from George Washington to FDR to Nixon to Bush and now to Obama. To understand why the US maintains its hegemonic leadership, we need to understand the history of the evolution of its power.
In the early years after the independence were marked by a period of the construction of the national identity envisioning its sovereignty recognition and autonomy. Since its birth the Founding Founders had the clarity that its model was created to redeem the world from the old corrupted system of autocracies and European balance of power but the redemption of the world was going to be a long term process. Since its system was just being implemented at home and due to its vulnerability, a policy of isolationism was the most realist way to approach foreign relations. I can draw this conclusion to Kenneth Waltz self-help of the international system where he states that “foreign policies are shaped and constrained by forces of the international system”. America did not have sufficient influential power to intervene in the international arena. However, nations would perceive American exempla of success and they would be influenced by its model. This policy of teaching by exempla was preached by many Presidents including Wilson, Truman, Carter and Clinton. Samuel Huntington states about this premise “Political institutions have reflected these values but have always fallen short of realizing them in a satisfactory manner.” He emphasizes the gap between the ideals and the practice in America policies which is one of the most criticized issues of American power. The US will try to accomplish its messianic mission but always making sure that it accords to its national interest. I do not agree with some scholar that insist on American isolationism is intrinsic in American Foreign Policy. Even when leaders chose to adopt a policy of isolation, there was never total disconnection from the international affairs (in case of the 30’s was a passive engagement.)
As soon as America economic strength developed with the industrial revolution in the late eighteen century and beginning of the nineteen century, Americans were ready to engage the world and expand its frontiers and influences with the ideal of the Manifest Destiny (its duty to propagate its ideals). This is when we see the abandonment of a theory of influence by example to a theory of actual intervention. The Monroe Doctrine established the concept of influence of regional order. Throughout history (Spanish War, Intervention in Cuba in Central America, etc) the Monroe Doctrine was used and adapted by many presidents in order to protect the US interest and the American continent of outside threat including during the cold war and in the post war period. With the decline of European power this period is characterized as a transition of hegemonic power. In this period, we witness the influential power of Business Corporation in relations of the manipulation of tariffs in order to protect their business. After US involvement in World War I and the depression of the 30s marked a period of isolation in order to solve internal social and economic problems. This period is one of the examples about the significant influence of popular pressure on policy creation and actions of leaders. This is democracy working at its best. The mass public with the social crises, demand Congressional action to change interventionist policies and prioritize national agenda. In order to be re-elected, Congress uses its institutional power to deter the presidency tendency to engage in foreign affairs. The mistake was learned later when with the ascension Nazism and Fascism in Europe, a second war was soon to erupt. By the time the US was attacked in Pearl Harbor, the administration already was planning the new international order after the war ended. The US was going to consolidate its leadership in an “informal” imperial power in all corner of the world. Open Door Policy (free trade and open markets) described how “business” in the world would have to be done from now on. Roosevelt’s multilateralism in order to satisfy Wilsonians’ demands to eradicate the European balance of power system was going to create international organizations in order to guarantee global stability, the right of self determination, democracy collective security, free trade, open markets, etc. With FDR death’s Truman started actively engage in building the international order maintained by American power and also by the principles of the institutions. The Cold War brought the containment policy and the idea of fighting the “other”. Americans had an enemy that threatened its ideals: Communism. And it had to be fought at all costs. Huntington declares: “The promotion of American liberty abroad often carries with it the need to expand the power of the American government which in turn conflicts with the domestic values of liberty. These tensions present an inevitable promise of disharmony”. This Soviet threat was exaggerated in many instances in order gain public support for Administration’s policies. Organized labor also shaped the policy of the this period as it propagated the message against the war in Vietnam, against communism, against the defense budget, etc by encouraging voters to punish the leading party. With the end of the Cold War brought the sense of victory by the American model. We still live by this model created after 1945.
The Bush Doctrine, it resurges the primacy of a unilaterism reflect in NSC of 2002. His acute neo-conservative ways of doing business at home and above shocked the world and make serious damage to American image abroad. 9/11 came as a perfect excuse to implement his policy of interventionism for preventive order (which have been contemplated by member of his cabinet since the Reagan years). The Bush Administration engaged in a propaganda campaign in order to acquire legitimacy for his policy. The public, as we all felt the vulnerability of the American power, stood behind his war against terror and Congress reacted authorizing a preemptive attack in Iraq without the authorization of the Security Council. Bush kept us reminding us of the eminent threat of an attack with his constantly color scale threat level. War industry made and is still making huge profits in contracts because of the war in Iraq. However, many lost their lives and our economic suffered huge crises due to war spending.
If American wants to remain the hegemonic leader, she cannot act like authoritarian countries. We need to preach by example. All influential actors of American foreign policies (business, think tanks, leaders, diplomats, liberal, conservatism) should work together to restore stability based on American principles in order to maintain its influence to guarantee its national interest.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011)
Since its birth, American has being engaged in expansion from the original colonies to its continental conquest and its projected influence throughout the globe. From the beginning of last century, America fought many wars and militarily intervened in all corners of the world. As Americans, we see ourselves as the beacon of freedom, the people who were chosen with the mission to spread the Good News that if the world follows our example, peace, democratic freedom and prosperity will prevail. With the election of President Obama in 2008, Americans sent a message to the international community that they were ready for a change. Americans were ready to tell the world that our approach to global leadership would be re-evaluated and the days of military intervention to project our power were counted. The pre-emptive Iraq invasion and the Bush’s administration mismanagement of both wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) had caused Americans great economic and political distress (not to mention the destruction of both countries). It was time for American leadership to re-evaluate its entire foreign policies, the ways we conduct ourselves in the international arena and lead the world in solving social, economical and political issues. It came to time when we as a country had to re-evaluate our commitment to accordance with our means. Obama messages towards American’s engagement in the world brought hope that American were finally going to reverse its years of domination and start acting by what we preached. He would be the determined leader who would concentrate his effort in solving our most important national problems (economic crises, increasing deficit, comprehensive health care reform, better public education, renewable energy to diminish our dependency on foreign oil, etc) mostly caused by actions of his predecessor ambitions around the world. The Bush years taught us an important lesson: military intervention did not make American any safer and the results of use of armed force were very blurred. It was time to reverse the image of a deceitful imperialist empire. However, here we are three years after Obama’s election and still present in chaotic and unstable Iraq, with more troops in Afghanistan, involved in Libya, and Guantanamo still open. In my view, the preponderance of American military power makes it quasi irresistible for us to use military intervention in problems around the world, regardless of whoever is at the white house. As all previous US presidents, Obama too uses “American exceptionalism” to justify and sell to Americans and to the people of the world his intervention abroad. It is going to take serious re-evaluation of our priorities, nationally and internationally in order to correct the tract and show to the world that American does deserve the hegemonic leadership that it has until another power emerge to dispute its role.
With the end of the Cold War, America found them in a position of unchallenged power. Without competition it felt free to act in and outside the international system it had created in order guarantee world peace and stability and protects its own interest. This week’s IMF projection that by 2016 China might became the most prosperous economic power in the world, should give US Administration another wake up call, and re-structure its priorities. We cannot be compelling to act impulsive and foolish to every single disturbance around the world especially when they do not pose any strategic threats and when the international community is so wary of our interventions. We should not over estimate the threat of an American attack since it is clear to us and to the entire whole that whoever attacks us at home will face a certain total destruction.
Thus, the future of Contemporary American Foreign Policy in my view, should entertain a balanced combination of restrain and engagement in a reformulation of the international order to prioritize national security. I believe we are still leaving in a transition period trying to figure out what the post-Cold war world will look like. After reading the different essays of scholars using different theoretical views in Ikenberry American Foreign Policy, I conclude that we are reliving the years between 1943-1947 after the World War II when American leadership was in the process of discerning in establishing its vision of how the world order should look like, who would be her allies and trying to define its challenges in order to create a comprehensive policy. So the question is should we continue with the same order or would American transform the order it created entirely? I do not think that there is an answer right now. Lilia Shevtsova states “it is not the quantity of action that counts, but the quality of the vision guiding those actions. The world needs a bold but viable new framework to deal with new global threats, and America in particular needs to reinvigorate the idea of liberal democracy and link it to the idea of global justice” (2) . However based on the past few years’ mistakes, I feel that American should move away from preemptive action mentality but at the same time engage in areas where an outside balancer is necessary to maintain regional order (Asia and Middle East) but using subtle tactics. A priority should be in place in order to bring legitimacy to International Organizations. This will require Americans leadership and also its commitment to abide by the rules of law and of the system. A serious reform of the strategy need to be based on reality of current world issues to combat the new challenges to global instability. A policy to include re-formulation of the Security Council by bringing new emerging powers in the decision making process where these countries will feel that there is a fair share of influence is of extreme importance. Leadership in Washington (both Congress and presidency) needs to move away from the mentality Cold War year. Even thought the threat of a terroristic attack is and will be present in the years to come, it cannot be the fundamental preoccupation of American national security and driver of our foreign policy strategy. Our insistence in intimidating to use military intervention in the Middle East will only exacerbate the threat. As Pose state in his The Case for Restraint “American is not nearly as powerful as it thinks it is, and therefore is unlikely to succeed in its ambitions plans to transform global politics through a hyper-activist policy.”(1) We need to review and renew our commitments to protect our allies in order to maintain our influential power but also to restore unstable regional orders. Instability in Asia (an exacerbated tension between China, Japan and Russia) or in Middle East (between Egypt, Israel, Syria) would have catastrophic results. As the invasion of Iraq showed us that military intervention to remove authoritarian government will not miracly transform a society into a working democracy.
If America wants to keep her hegemony in order to defend her interest, she needs to seriously try to reverse the Anti-Americanism sentiment in the world but especially from its most importantly allies. Also, the state Department needs to create programs of public diplomacy in countries where anti-Americanism sentiments are fervent. Humanitarian aid, social projects thru NGOs would help to send the message that Americans really desire to lead the world into prosperity. It would also take a re-evaluation of our most criticized commitments. It needs to get though with Israel not by cutting aid overnight, but by exercising its power and demand end of Israel occupation in Palestinian areas. It is important that we maintain our agenda in promoting our ideals: defending the protection of human rights, the support of civil society, freedom of speech and flow of information, the rules of law to all countries, especially in countries that considered our allies yet are ruled but government who practice the opposite (exempla Saudi Arabia).
It is in only welcoming the sharing of responsibility in the world leadership that United States will be able to achieve the vision of its Founding Fathers to create a world of peace and prosperity based on American creeds of freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011) Pages (1) 552 and (571)
Question 2
American foreign policy often appears to be an arena of conflict between the domestic and international forces. In the domestic realm, America confronts the corporate interests which call for greater space for economic issues in the US foreign policy, while the policy preferences of the mass public is an important concern for American foreign policy making in terms of providing the foreign policy choices with political legitimacy. The international system, on the other hand, because of its anarchic nature, imposes a certain type of behavior upon states which is defined primarily by self-help, safeguarding national security and power maximization. How do you evaluate the interaction of these forces in shaping the US foreign policy? In the light of your knowledge on US foreign policy choices throughout its history, do you see any pattern that prioritizes either of the forces or do you think that US foreign policy reflects more a mixture of the two? Justify your answer with specific examples.
I believe that American Foreign Policy is influenced by several forces (national and international) which shape the process of making and executing international relations. A mixture of the two forces worked and still works simultaneous in shaping policy throughout history. Nationally, scholars, the media, interest groups, public, policymakers, business leaders, and leaders influence directly or indirectly the development of policy. International developments also influence policies that are shaped and adapted in reaction to current affairs. Realistic scholars would argue that because the public do not have sufficient knowledge to understand the international arena, the democratic process (since leaders will have to comply with public demands in other to be re-elected) affect the quality of policies and suffer from efficiency. The Kioto Protocol is an example of problems where interest group can negatively prevent and influence the US leadership to approve measurements towards policies that would benefit the international community. Business corporations also influence policy makers by supporting or not their campaign with financial resources. In Business Versus Public Influence in US Foreign Policy, Lawrence R Jacobs and Benjamin Page assert “business has a strong consistent and at times lopsided influence upon US foreign policy.”
The process of the evolution of the American foreign policy and its national identity has to be analyzed in an historical context of its international relations understanding that its international actions started in the formation of the nation. The origin of US power, ideals and the vision of the projection of its influence globally began with the revolutionary movement. Based on this understanding, I conclude that all actual premises of its foreign policies that proscribe American actions in the international system are consequences of precedent political constructions that were and are based on unyielding traditions and principles from the creation of the nation in the 18th century. These traditions defined past international relations, are defining the current policies and will probably continue to define the future ones. This is not to say that American policies of the 18th century are exactly the same as the policies of today. Thus, it has been shaped and adapted to fit the current national and global challenges and constraints, but the core priorities and goals of its vision and actions have remained true to the American Creed. The belief that the republic is the beacon of freedom and democracy, and the exceptional mission of Americans in the world can be found in speeches of all presidents from George Washington to FDR to Nixon to Bush and now to Obama. To understand why the US maintains its hegemonic leadership, we need to understand the history of the evolution of its power.
In the early years after the independence were marked by a period of the construction of the national identity envisioning its sovereignty recognition and autonomy. Since its birth the Founding Founders had the clarity that its model was created to redeem the world from the old corrupted system of autocracies and European balance of power but the redemption of the world was going to be a long term process. Since its system was just being implemented at home and due to its vulnerability, a policy of isolationism was the most realist way to approach foreign relations. I can draw this conclusion to Kenneth Waltz self-help of the international system where he states that “foreign policies are shaped and constrained by forces of the international system”. America did not have sufficient influential power to intervene in the international arena. However, nations would perceive American exempla of success and they would be influenced by its model. This policy of teaching by exempla was preached by many Presidents including Wilson, Truman, Carter and Clinton. Samuel Huntington states about this premise “Political institutions have reflected these values but have always fallen short of realizing them in a satisfactory manner.” He emphasizes the gap between the ideals and the practice in America policies which is one of the most criticized issues of American power. The US will try to accomplish its messianic mission but always making sure that it accords to its national interest. I do not agree with some scholar that insist on American isolationism is intrinsic in American Foreign Policy. Even when leaders chose to adopt a policy of isolation, there was never total disconnection from the international affairs (in case of the 30’s was a passive engagement.)
As soon as America economic strength developed with the industrial revolution in the late eighteen century and beginning of the nineteen century, Americans were ready to engage the world and expand its frontiers and influences with the ideal of the Manifest Destiny (its duty to propagate its ideals). This is when we see the abandonment of a theory of influence by example to a theory of actual intervention. The Monroe Doctrine established the concept of influence of regional order. Throughout history (Spanish War, Intervention in Cuba in Central America, etc) the Monroe Doctrine was used and adapted by many presidents in order to protect the US interest and the American continent of outside threat including during the cold war and in the post war period. With the decline of European power this period is characterized as a transition of hegemonic power. In this period, we witness the influential power of Business Corporation in relations of the manipulation of tariffs in order to protect their business. After US involvement in World War I and the depression of the 30s marked a period of isolation in order to solve internal social and economic problems. This period is one of the examples about the significant influence of popular pressure on policy creation and actions of leaders. This is democracy working at its best. The mass public with the social crises, demand Congressional action to change interventionist policies and prioritize national agenda. In order to be re-elected, Congress uses its institutional power to deter the presidency tendency to engage in foreign affairs. The mistake was learned later when with the ascension Nazism and Fascism in Europe, a second war was soon to erupt. By the time the US was attacked in Pearl Harbor, the administration already was planning the new international order after the war ended. The US was going to consolidate its leadership in an “informal” imperial power in all corner of the world. Open Door Policy (free trade and open markets) described how “business” in the world would have to be done from now on. Roosevelt’s multilateralism in order to satisfy Wilsonians’ demands to eradicate the European balance of power system was going to create international organizations in order to guarantee global stability, the right of self determination, democracy collective security, free trade, open markets, etc. With FDR death’s Truman started actively engage in building the international order maintained by American power and also by the principles of the institutions. The Cold War brought the containment policy and the idea of fighting the “other”. Americans had an enemy that threatened its ideals: Communism. And it had to be fought at all costs. Huntington declares: “The promotion of American liberty abroad often carries with it the need to expand the power of the American government which in turn conflicts with the domestic values of liberty. These tensions present an inevitable promise of disharmony”. This Soviet threat was exaggerated in many instances in order gain public support for Administration’s policies. Organized labor also shaped the policy of the this period as it propagated the message against the war in Vietnam, against communism, against the defense budget, etc by encouraging voters to punish the leading party. With the end of the Cold War brought the sense of victory by the American model. We still live by this model created after 1945.
The Bush Doctrine, it resurges the primacy of a unilaterism reflect in NSC of 2002. His acute neo-conservative ways of doing business at home and above shocked the world and make serious damage to American image abroad. 9/11 came as a perfect excuse to implement his policy of interventionism for preventive order (which have been contemplated by member of his cabinet since the Reagan years). The Bush Administration engaged in a propaganda campaign in order to acquire legitimacy for his policy. The public, as we all felt the vulnerability of the American power, stood behind his war against terror and Congress reacted authorizing a preemptive attack in Iraq without the authorization of the Security Council. Bush kept us reminding us of the eminent threat of an attack with his constantly color scale threat level. War industry made and is still making huge profits in contracts because of the war in Iraq. However, many lost their lives and our economic suffered huge crises due to war spending.
If American wants to remain the hegemonic leader, she cannot act like authoritarian countries. We need to preach by example. All influential actors of American foreign policies (business, think tanks, leaders, diplomats, liberal, conservatism) should work together to restore stability based on American principles in order to maintain its influence to guarantee its national interest.
Notes:
Ikenberry, G. John, American Foreign Policy (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston MA 2011)
Friday, April 1, 2011
Dominance of American culture
Worldwide spread and dominance of American culture is seen as one of the most controversial aspects of globalization. How do you approach the fears - especially on the part of the countries such as China, France and the wider Middle East - that global culture may become too Americanized, destroying other cultural, economic and religious traditions? Do you agree with Iriye's interpretation of the state of affairs from 1913 to 1945 which he sees as mainly based on the actions of the US as a major actor affecting the outside world? What kind of challenges (in cultural terms), if any, US had to face since its globalizing role in the aftermath of WWI? Do you think that those challenges have shaped the US as well or the so-called "globalizing" of America has remained to be a "unidirectional" process?
I absolute concur with Iriye that Americanization (spread of American principles, values and way of life) is an unquestionable phenomenon which is predisposed to increase as the world becomes more and more connected (globalization). Recent world uprisings and revolutions are evidences that American principles of freedom, democracy and human rights are being aspired throughout the world, especially after the media revolution and the increase of the use of the internet and the social media.
The American culture is also transmitted to the world through mass media communications including movies, tv channels and music dictating a model of life to be followed, influencing the way people dress, eat, think, buy, listen. Anyone who is fortunate enough to have travel around the world can notice that McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Coca Cola and many other American multinationals are spread through countries and doing very well financially. An example is fast food restaurants which usually offer inexpensive unhealthy highly processed foods and are considered to have negative influence in countries with cultures that historically have consumed healthy foods, causing increase of obesity and cardiovascular diseases or destroying local restaurants that cannot compete with prices.
In my opinion, whether the influence come from US or any other power that might emerge in the world arena, governments should accept that the world is connected (globalization is here to stay) and that it is only in educating its people that they will be able to evaluate foreign influences and make healthy choices for their lives and for future generations. China, France and others should encourage their population to ask questions like, is eating fast food really the best option for my children? Up to what point will these influences damage my national identity? Suppressing foreign influences through censorship is in my view wrong and a failed approach since it will only make people more curious.
I do agree with Iriye that state affairs from 1913 to 1945 were based on the actions of the US as a major actor that affected the outside world. And thus, globalization is a two-way phenomenon, also affecting the US. With the spread of Americanization, people will feel compelled to migrate to the US in search for the American Dream. Thus, US is a country that was made from immigrants by default. However, as we witness all the debate behind immigration issues (regardless of which side you agree) it is notable that the majority of immigrants and minorities are marginalized and isolated causing social problems (as poverty).
Other aspect that present challenge is the corporate capitalism (we call it in Brazil, the American wild capitalism) which will glorify profits over all costs (over environmental preservation, labor laws, etc). This translates in the idea that as long as money is coming in happiness will follow. Thus, the US assume a image of double standards since it fights for human rights but close their eyes to factories overseas that manufacture their inventions at a cheap cost because they abuse employees and degrade the environment. This only increase anti-American sentiments abroad.
Another challenge is terrorism and extremists groups that use Americanization as threat of destroying people’s culture and especially religion. An example is Al Qaida agenda of implying that the West (mainly the US) is anti-Islam. This week hearings on radicalization of the Muslim community promoted by Rep. King is precisely what extremists groups would use as propaganda against Americans. They will use the media reports about the hearings to prove that the US is after their religion and demand reactionary attacks against us (via videos or the internet). That in return will cause that US step up in security measurements in other to prevent attacks provoking limitation of our privacy rights.
I absolute concur with Iriye that Americanization (spread of American principles, values and way of life) is an unquestionable phenomenon which is predisposed to increase as the world becomes more and more connected (globalization). Recent world uprisings and revolutions are evidences that American principles of freedom, democracy and human rights are being aspired throughout the world, especially after the media revolution and the increase of the use of the internet and the social media.
The American culture is also transmitted to the world through mass media communications including movies, tv channels and music dictating a model of life to be followed, influencing the way people dress, eat, think, buy, listen. Anyone who is fortunate enough to have travel around the world can notice that McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Coca Cola and many other American multinationals are spread through countries and doing very well financially. An example is fast food restaurants which usually offer inexpensive unhealthy highly processed foods and are considered to have negative influence in countries with cultures that historically have consumed healthy foods, causing increase of obesity and cardiovascular diseases or destroying local restaurants that cannot compete with prices.
In my opinion, whether the influence come from US or any other power that might emerge in the world arena, governments should accept that the world is connected (globalization is here to stay) and that it is only in educating its people that they will be able to evaluate foreign influences and make healthy choices for their lives and for future generations. China, France and others should encourage their population to ask questions like, is eating fast food really the best option for my children? Up to what point will these influences damage my national identity? Suppressing foreign influences through censorship is in my view wrong and a failed approach since it will only make people more curious.
I do agree with Iriye that state affairs from 1913 to 1945 were based on the actions of the US as a major actor that affected the outside world. And thus, globalization is a two-way phenomenon, also affecting the US. With the spread of Americanization, people will feel compelled to migrate to the US in search for the American Dream. Thus, US is a country that was made from immigrants by default. However, as we witness all the debate behind immigration issues (regardless of which side you agree) it is notable that the majority of immigrants and minorities are marginalized and isolated causing social problems (as poverty).
Other aspect that present challenge is the corporate capitalism (we call it in Brazil, the American wild capitalism) which will glorify profits over all costs (over environmental preservation, labor laws, etc). This translates in the idea that as long as money is coming in happiness will follow. Thus, the US assume a image of double standards since it fights for human rights but close their eyes to factories overseas that manufacture their inventions at a cheap cost because they abuse employees and degrade the environment. This only increase anti-American sentiments abroad.
Another challenge is terrorism and extremists groups that use Americanization as threat of destroying people’s culture and especially religion. An example is Al Qaida agenda of implying that the West (mainly the US) is anti-Islam. This week hearings on radicalization of the Muslim community promoted by Rep. King is precisely what extremists groups would use as propaganda against Americans. They will use the media reports about the hearings to prove that the US is after their religion and demand reactionary attacks against us (via videos or the internet). That in return will cause that US step up in security measurements in other to prevent attacks provoking limitation of our privacy rights.
American expansionism
Perkins was celebrating "American expansionism" on the grounds that it was an important component of US foreign policy on its way to become an empire. LaFeber, on the other hand, approaches American interventionism as a source of disorder and instability in affected lands. How would you evaluate American interventionism in the Middle East in general, and in the context of the recent revolutionary movements in Egytp and Tunisia in particular? LaFeber thinks the US was a determinative force in helping to trigger 19th century revolutions in Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua and elsewhere. Do you think that the US, through its policies in the region, has played a similar role in the Middle East too throughout the 20th century?
In my view, the United States has used the same Interventionist policies applied to the Middle East in the 20th century as it did to Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama and elsewhere else.
In regards to foreign policy, American politicians prioritized national interest (strategic, security and economic) over fundamental ideals we stand for as order, democracy and liberty. The US continues to support regimes that are tyrannical, corrupt and unpopular, closing their eyes to the oppression of millions of people as long as those governments are pro-American cooperating with US demands. These policies send a very hypocritical image to the world especially when the US claims to be the most important advocate of human rights in the international arena. This double standard just helps to increase anti American sentiments throughout the Middle East.
The US continues to create foreign policies which reflect the Cold War years. These policies were created with the idea that the “ends” justifies the “means”. The best example I can think of is Saddam Hussein, who was first an important ally to the US when he was engaged in war with Iran. Saddam helped to keep the Islamist revolutionaries occupied avoiding the revolution model to be spread throughout the Muslim world (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). It all changed when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, which was not a country that posed any treat to US interests. Suddenly Saddam became the villain and after the US got him out of Kuwait, the US did not do much to overthrow him from power. Then, when the W.G. Bush come to power, he found “reasons” to take Saddam out of power and generated a war that depleted our economy, lost many innocents lives and destroyed Iraq infrastructure.
In my view the US is indirectly responsible for the latest uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Arab world because of its continuous support for oppressive corrupt regimes in the name of region stability. Murabak, named one of the most important US ally in the region in the war against terrorism, led an oppressive regime. Ironically, the Egyptians triumphant revolution demanded to obtain the dreamed democracy preached by the Americans. The US, in the beginning of the uprisings, decided to practice omission and only after the clashes escalated that the Obama Administration voiced that Egyptian government should hear the requests of its people. I think these events in Tunisia and Egypt teach us that we should respect and appreciate movements within countries and we should stay away from wanting to impose changes from outside. These movements started from within against pro-western leaders without any anti-westerner or anti-imperialist characteristics.
In my view, the United States has used the same Interventionist policies applied to the Middle East in the 20th century as it did to Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama and elsewhere else.
In regards to foreign policy, American politicians prioritized national interest (strategic, security and economic) over fundamental ideals we stand for as order, democracy and liberty. The US continues to support regimes that are tyrannical, corrupt and unpopular, closing their eyes to the oppression of millions of people as long as those governments are pro-American cooperating with US demands. These policies send a very hypocritical image to the world especially when the US claims to be the most important advocate of human rights in the international arena. This double standard just helps to increase anti American sentiments throughout the Middle East.
The US continues to create foreign policies which reflect the Cold War years. These policies were created with the idea that the “ends” justifies the “means”. The best example I can think of is Saddam Hussein, who was first an important ally to the US when he was engaged in war with Iran. Saddam helped to keep the Islamist revolutionaries occupied avoiding the revolution model to be spread throughout the Muslim world (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). It all changed when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, which was not a country that posed any treat to US interests. Suddenly Saddam became the villain and after the US got him out of Kuwait, the US did not do much to overthrow him from power. Then, when the W.G. Bush come to power, he found “reasons” to take Saddam out of power and generated a war that depleted our economy, lost many innocents lives and destroyed Iraq infrastructure.
In my view the US is indirectly responsible for the latest uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Arab world because of its continuous support for oppressive corrupt regimes in the name of region stability. Murabak, named one of the most important US ally in the region in the war against terrorism, led an oppressive regime. Ironically, the Egyptians triumphant revolution demanded to obtain the dreamed democracy preached by the Americans. The US, in the beginning of the uprisings, decided to practice omission and only after the clashes escalated that the Obama Administration voiced that Egyptian government should hear the requests of its people. I think these events in Tunisia and Egypt teach us that we should respect and appreciate movements within countries and we should stay away from wanting to impose changes from outside. These movements started from within against pro-western leaders without any anti-westerner or anti-imperialist characteristics.
AMERICAN EMPIRE
Perkins appears to have a celebratory tone in his view of the role of the US in the world (you may challenge that) and provides us with a detailed survey of how it was transformed into a republican nation and extended into a continental "empire" as he calls it. Given his discussion on the origins of the American pattern of behavior, do you think that the US still sustains the "empire" in the postmodern world especially in the face of the challenges posed by other major economic and political actors emerging onto the world scene such as China, India, Japan, and possibly the EU?
I absolutely concur that the United States sustains the “empire” in the post modern world even though countries such as China, India, Japan and EU are emerging onto the world scene. Perkins “glorious” account of the birth of the republic and its first decades was very informative pointing out that America was born from principles of liberty, ambitious economic prosperity (thus prioritizing trade and expansionism) and use of diplomacy to defend national interests. The Founding Fathers created a governing system that would correct the dreadful wrongs done by European monarchies and it would become the model of government the world should exercise. The Republic was designed to empower its people with the ability to write their own destiny. Foreign Policy was a crucial part of the revolution and it proved to be essential tool in order to demand acceptance and respect from Europe. The United State would only be valued as an International player if other dominant nations perceived its influential power. Nationalism was the force that kept the Union together and is still the force that helps Americans to maintain the status as “superpower”. Americans believe in their governing institutions and stand by its policies and actions. Today, the United States has the largest economy; the most advanced military system; prominently influences international policies and major global debates; in my opinion, all these major achievements no other single country is close from accomplishing.
I finish with a quote from Pres. Obama 2011 State of Union speech, to conclude that the future of the American “empire” is really in the hands of its own people:
“So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
The future is ours to win.”
Note:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
I absolutely concur that the United States sustains the “empire” in the post modern world even though countries such as China, India, Japan and EU are emerging onto the world scene. Perkins “glorious” account of the birth of the republic and its first decades was very informative pointing out that America was born from principles of liberty, ambitious economic prosperity (thus prioritizing trade and expansionism) and use of diplomacy to defend national interests. The Founding Fathers created a governing system that would correct the dreadful wrongs done by European monarchies and it would become the model of government the world should exercise. The Republic was designed to empower its people with the ability to write their own destiny. Foreign Policy was a crucial part of the revolution and it proved to be essential tool in order to demand acceptance and respect from Europe. The United State would only be valued as an International player if other dominant nations perceived its influential power. Nationalism was the force that kept the Union together and is still the force that helps Americans to maintain the status as “superpower”. Americans believe in their governing institutions and stand by its policies and actions. Today, the United States has the largest economy; the most advanced military system; prominently influences international policies and major global debates; in my opinion, all these major achievements no other single country is close from accomplishing.
I finish with a quote from Pres. Obama 2011 State of Union speech, to conclude that the future of the American “empire” is really in the hands of its own people:
“So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
The future is ours to win.”
Note:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
Does NATO functions as a useful tool for the US in order to continue to promote its values and principles?
In my opinion, NATO is a vital alliance, important for the maintenance of collective security, peace and stability of the world. NATO has become an important political institution advocating its commitment to democratic values with its system of to resolving emerging conflicts through its practice of consensus ensuring peace. NATO has been successful in fulfilling its member’s security over the years. The cost of security would be a burden to “weaker” nations that would not be able to secure themselves individually. This is the reason why I think that the alliance will not come to an end as its members will continue to support it as NATO re-evaluates its goals and its ability to respond to the new enemies, challenges and treats collectively. Another important task of NATO to contribute to its legitimacy is its role in international humanitarian assistance in disaster-stricken areas.
NATO’s expansion to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact (former adversaries) has been controversial as some critics will argue that their admission to the alliance would jeopardize American-Russian relations. However, I believe that in expanding, NATO strengthened the security of its members and partners as it broadened its area of influence and helped these countries to reform and progress towards democratization and modernization contributing to the overall stability of Europe.
I also agree that the US interest and agenda is a very influential force in actions taken by NATO. I also believe that it will always exist a leading force in all organizations and institutions as they are operated by people with its own interest and bias. However, the US has been assumed the role of world leader since World War I and it will continue to act as the leader unless other power assumes its role.
The recent crisis is Libya is an example how NATO continues to play an important role in the international arena as it is the only military organization capable of supporting UN Security Council resolutions.
NATO’s expansion to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact (former adversaries) has been controversial as some critics will argue that their admission to the alliance would jeopardize American-Russian relations. However, I believe that in expanding, NATO strengthened the security of its members and partners as it broadened its area of influence and helped these countries to reform and progress towards democratization and modernization contributing to the overall stability of Europe.
I also agree that the US interest and agenda is a very influential force in actions taken by NATO. I also believe that it will always exist a leading force in all organizations and institutions as they are operated by people with its own interest and bias. However, the US has been assumed the role of world leader since World War I and it will continue to act as the leader unless other power assumes its role.
The recent crisis is Libya is an example how NATO continues to play an important role in the international arena as it is the only military organization capable of supporting UN Security Council resolutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)