My USA foreign policy for the 21st century

Great Debates
21

Well I do not see it as a question about ‘Europe-China-India’-blocks.

First: USA has been a good ‘neighbour’ to Europe for some 100 years or so.
We have always been able to count on USA, but after Kennedy the road has had its bumps. Without forgetting Canada, your neighbour.
Thank you both for that.

The situation now and the future:

  • China will be a bigger economic power than US around 2040, India as big and Brazil will be number four.
  • Putin is doing everything to have China and India as its friends. Sold e.g. cruise missiles to China not so long ago.
  • Europe has many problems but the biggest are:
    a) Can produce a lot, but not big enough market => unemployment
    b) Very little energy is found around
    c) lack of other natural sources

Now, Mr Putin know That and Russia has it all:

  • need of everything from consumer goods to God knows what.
  • oil and gas to pay with
  • any other resources you can imagine.
    Russia is the most rich country in the world when we speak about resources.
    It has always been. And the people has always been kept poor, but now even the cheap man-power is a benefit for Putin.

Further, Mr Putin knows that we need him and is immensely happy every time when the Bush administration has a row with Europe.

In fact, Bush administration, and some small popes in Europe (French pres. among some others) are pushing us in a direction, away from our old ally, USA.

And that bothers me. If we do not have USA, we will be in the leech of Putin and his friends. If they are friends, becomes friends, and have us, Europe, then they have it all. Except US, who will be out there as an island.
[OK, I know there is still Australia and many more, but you take my drift?]

Bush, the jerk, has also bound his hands in Iraq and can not do a chicken shit about anything else. Just as Russia was married with its problem Afghanistan some 20 years ago. Putin, Ivanov and the gangsters, is laughing so that the corridors of Kreml is echoing.
China just smiles politely and wait.
And all the small popes in Europe has their interests, different interests and they try to sew all the rags together, and are happy when they have a plan how to make a blanket and who is in charge of witch path in that blanket. F—ing pathetic.

The writers here seem to see that Chaves is just a demagogue? Well, he is nit stupid. According to the polls he will get 70% of the votes, and now when the 3 biggest opposition parties will not participate in the elections, he will shoot very high.
He can rewrite the whole constitution with that power any afternoon after Sunday. Legally.
Others has already covered the other questions about S-America.

Some keep talking about US as an empire? Well, we will see how long that will last and wake me up when it is born in the first place.
Besides, the war in Iraq is already lost.
“Bring 'em on!”, my @ss. Well, they really brought themselves on.
Now Bush admin is so done that it does not know how to turn.

That’s how I see the situation.

Henry

22

And then what?
The fleet is very handy when you attack a third rate military country, but not when you are speaking to a country that has been building rockets for more than 30 years.

US will just sell weapons, that’s all.

http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2004/Oct/26-277540.html

Henry

23

30-year old rockets are not much of a match for modern missile-defense systems, especially since a US carrier group would likely be positioned many miles away from them.

24

LOL. The rockets are not 30 years old.

The question is, what would/could a carrier group do in any assumed situation?
Especially when the US admin says that it will not defend, but sell weapons.

The straight is 80 km broad and how long would it for a fleet to take positions?
The population of Taiwan is not as much against the mainland China as it used to be.
There is time, a lot of time. China is just waiting.
[I do not want to derail this to a China-discussion, but the US policy in China is, and has been for a longer time, a little bit different from the picture the main media gives.]

Henry

25

Say, where’s Aeschines?

26

So is the U.S., on the perfectly reasonable presumption that the communist dictatorship in China will collapse or gradually fade away, at which point strategic goals will shift. The carrier groups are just there to suggest that an invasion of Taiwan, already a massively complex and costly operation, would be vastly more so if an American Navy ship gets hit by accident.

It’s an unpleasant, nasty, stressful business, but the alternatives are worse.

27

As a foreign national living in the U.S., I suggest you take your proposal to expand U.S. territory into my country and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

You want to clean things up and expand your dominance? Start by cleaning things up at home first.

You want economic influence? Try abiding by the treaties you sign. Know why Bush got nowhere with his CAFTA proposals two weeks ago? Because Central and South America saw how the U.S. is ignoring NAFTA rulings…

As for Iraq, your whole premise is incorrect. If the U.S. had gone before the world and argued that corrupt regimes breed terrorists/threats to the rest of the world, it would have had a legitimate argument. If Colin Powell had sat down and argued that no nation is safe because corrupt regimes are sponsoring terrorists, it would have won U.N. approval. If George Bush had started out saying “we need to spread democracy to remove power from terrorists”, the world would have looked at the aftermath of 9/11, and the successful campaign in Afghanistan, and actually joined forces to root out corrupt regimes that hitherto had been ignored.

The moral argument for invasion could have been made. It was not. The whole “we must spread democracy” idea is a way to (successfully) pull the wool over your eyes, because the WMD argument turned out to be a big fat lie.

Which the rest of the world recognized when Colin Powell made his powerpoint presentation. The only nations that joined the US in Iraq wanted to be able to call in favours later on.

28

Of course, it’s conceivable that a democratic China would be just as nationalistic and aggressive as communist China. Almost certainly, Chinese democrats would not give up on the idea of restoring China to its ancient place as the predominant, hegemonic power in East Asia. And I doubt they’d be willing to hear talk of independence for Tibet or Xingiang or Inner Mongolia.

29

Possibly, but I expect far less likely as democracies (generally) become less aggressive as their wealth increases and they seek to protect that wealth.

30

Nitpick: CAFTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFTA), like NAFTA, is a done deal. Bush was forestalled only in trying to establish a hemisphere-wide version, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTAA). (See my above post on the South American Community of Nations.)

31

No, I was ignorant of this. Thanks.

Too bad. We should have, I think, pretty much the whole world under a free trade agreement, with the exceptions few, sensible, and explicitly stated (e.g., developing nation ABC needs to defend its agricultural sector for reasons XYZ).

Sure, we might have blown the chance to do something about that already.

32

Indeed, many will not be interested.

But the sphere of influence has both passive and active components, and each are important. The active component is building economic, political, and military alliances in the sphere of influence.

The passive component is disallowing the other powers from doing the same. In other words, “China, we will not play Taiwan against you, but in exchange you will not play Venezuela or any other country in our SoI against us.”

33

Foreign national of where? Canada?

Oh, we’ll be together eventually.

No doubt. We need to clean up both domestic and foreign policy.

Yes.

Well, I agree with everything you wrote.

34

Barbarian, I respectfully disagree, and I think you may be overestimating the American people’s willingness to “nation-build.”

I agree with you that a moral case could have been presented, but Bush lacked the rhetorical ability to convey it. Or Bush (or Rove/Wolfowitz/Cheney or some combination of the “Usual Suspects”) calculated that the American people would reject a moral rationale for war. Truthfully, they probably had good reason to believe that, considering the last memorable injection of American ground troops (thus excluding the death-free air-driven rout of the Serbians) was the disastrous Somalia intervention. I still think the American people have a deep isolationist streak within its collective psyche that will come to fruition - for better or worse - in the coming two elections, and the “world” would be wise to prepare for it when it comes. It might not be pretty.

Furthermore, to believe the U.N. would put its imprimatur on a military invasion of Iraq justified solely by moral reasons is, IMHO, the height of folly.

The U.K. would come along, seems safe to say.

But the cynical French would regard a war justified by moral reasons as the hyperpuissance further extending its tentacles over the world (as well as possibly exposing some of the rather shady oil deals they had made with Saddam). It’s the ultimate philosophical rejection of the “soft power” they so value.

Ultimately, since de Gaulle opted out of the military wing of NATO, the pillar of French foreign policy has been to act as a “counterweight” to U.S. power. And, to be fair, I’m sure Chiraq/de Villepin et. al. remembered the French colonial experience in Algeria and - despite their disagreements with the U.S. - did not wish its ally to make the same mistake in Iraq.

To the justifiably paranoid Russians, dying a slow but sure demographic death and fighting an unwinnable war with the Chechnyans, what sense would it make to encourage a confident America, fresh off its triumph in Afghanistan? You really think Putin would say, “Sure, George W., go ahead and secure a bridgehead in the heart of the Middle East. We don’t mind if all those countries we used to coerce - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekistan - will now gravitate to the American side. We don’t mind if we lose our sweet oil deals. I’m former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, of course I want American-style democracy and capitalism in the heart of the Middle East!!”

The Chinese? Support a war fought to spread American-style democracy? :rolleyes:

Perhaps they’d abstain, content to let those idealistic cowboy Americans flail away against those savages in the sandbox while they keep buying the U.S. debt, and get a lot cozier with the Iranian mullahs to secure their rapidly growing thirst for oil.

35

As US?
(Sorry, I could not resist. :wink: )

Henry

36

I also think that China will be more and more democratic.
On the other hand, I do not think China has to wait too long for Taiwan being a part of the mainland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5454731,00.html

The US administration will not send any carriers to The Strait or do anything else about this.
It is only the US public that has been reported ‘slowly’ about the real situation over there.

I do not have a link about this, but an Amercian guy living in Taiwan told me that the moral of the army there is not what expected and that many of the officers are for the re-unification!!! :eek:
Has anyone any knowledge about this?

Henry

37

When have they ever tried to?

38

**HeelB4Zod **, I think that based on the success of the international effort in Afghanistan (which is still a broad-based coalition), it would have been possible. Maybe it would have failed, but it still would have been a better first move than the spurious WMD claims made by the Bush administration.

39

LOL. Yes you could say that it is “a broad-based coalition”, whenever you speak about a UN operation. :stuck_out_tongue:

Henry