Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Another view on US foreign policy
Published on April 6, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Someone on one of the forums said:

"I find it embarrassing that anyone would brag about US foreign policy. We should be apologizing for it."

Such self-loathing has always been typical of the left. The sort of pessimistic, glass is half empty views on any number of issue has always struck me as strange. In this case, it also strikes me as incredibly lacking of serious perspective on world history.

I consider the US foreign policy, as a whole, to have been of great benefit to the world.

The US has pledged over $10 billion to fight AIDS in Africa.  How much as the EU spent total? China? Russia? Why not? This is serious money.  The US spends more than anyone else on helping not just AIDS in Africa but on providing food and fighting malaria. And when one of their governments, such as in Liberia or Ivory Coast crumble, it's not the French they want in there. It's the United States. The US is like the unappreciated cop. People spit on the cop but when things hit the fan you know who they really want and trust to help them -- the United States.

Let's be real here -- if not the United States, the whom? France? Russia? China? Who? Much of Europe got a taste of Germany wanting to be the hegemon. Japan too. It's easy to compare the United States to some sort of idealized perfect world power. But how about living in the real world. Not the Star Trek world where it's the idealized Federation being the standard bearer.

The US helps ensure the freedom of countries like Taiwan. Meanwhile, France participates in joint naval excercises with Communist China off the coast of Taiwan during the Taiwanese elections. Nice. While the US was trying to get consensus in the UN, France unilaterally invaded the Ivory Coast. But hey, that's okay, it's France right?

The US not only liberated Europe but it paid for its reconstruction. Same for Japan. By contrast, the Soviet Union pillaged Germany and Eastern Europe. Some 100,000 German women were raped in 1945 alone by Russian soldiers. And for all the complaining about the Kyoto accords and other CO2 debates, visit eastern Europe or say Moscow. You don't need any special devices to tell that the air in Moscow is hard to breath. Try visiting Beijing who is in the process of trying to clean up its massive air pollution to be less embarrassing by the time they host the olympics. The typical American or European (and ask anyone whose visited a major city in China) will currently have a seriously hard time breathing. But we'll pick on the United States because it doesn't support the Kyoto treaty (btw, John Kerry voted AGAINST the Kyoto treaty).

Meanwhile, South Korea, which provides a lot of the computer goods you guys use to bitch about the United States, exists today because of US foreign policy. The US lost over 50,000 people defending South Korea. Which, btw, at the time was essentially a pre-industrial rural society. With US help, it has become home of such companies as Samsung and manufactures everything from cars to computer chips. Even today, 25,000 Americans are there. And while it's convenient to fixate on every American combat casualty in Iraq, there are occasionally deaths in Korea near the DMZ zone. It's not a fun place. How many French and German troops are helping out in that "UN" operation?

Western Europe, which regularly gets uppity about US foreign policy, is free today because the US was willing to put its own cities on the line in the face of Soviet nuclear intimdation. Which is totally taken for granted. The US was willing to sacrifice itself to save Europe from Soviet domination. Meanwhile, the Germans can't manage to put together a single division to help the United States in Afghanistan.  Heck, the French and Germans combined can't.

Most of you, I assume, drive cars but some act like oil comes from some magic fairie land. The US commited blood and treasure to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's brutal regime. And we all benefited from this. And while France and other "multilateral-loving" nations technically particpated in that wonderful example of multilaterialism, it realistically came down to the United States, UK, and Australia doing the real work there. France and the other countries were there essentially as symbolic gestures of unity.

And for all the talk about "squandering" world "good will" after 9/11 with the Iraq invasion, let us not forget Afghanistan where non-US help was minimal (a couple hundred Canadians, a handful of Germans, a couple French planes). That was the material result of "good will". No wonder Bush decided he could do without more "good will" in Iraq.

Which reminds me, Iraq, a country whose fascist dictator threw opponents and children of opponents into plastic shredders, cut out tongues, and created mass graveyards that made anything in Kosovo look like a joke, is now free of him thanks to US foreign policy. It should be pointed out that the whole middle-east mess can be laid at the hands of European colonialism. Now it's the United States, UK, Poland, and Australia doing the heavy lifting to help Iraq.  Now, why does that combination of countries seem familiar? Ah yes, they were the main ones who helped on the allied side in World War 2 (not counting the Soviet Untion of course).

The United States is currently helping out in Haiti. A country whose been poverty stricken since the French in the 19th century basically sucked the wealth out of it through a series of tribute payments backed by military threat. Most people don't bother to look into what messed up Haiti but I suspect many US haters suspect that somehow the US is at fault here too regardless of the facts.

There is also the billions of dollars in foreign aid the US provides to countries around the world. $5 billion annually  to Egypt. Billions to various central American countries. Even before 9/11, the US was the largest food donor to Afghanistan. More so than any other country.

Speaking of the EU and its abilities... after standing by and watching ethnic cleansing go on in its own back yard, the US stopped Serbia from doing the same in Kosovo.

So tell me again why the US should be embarrased about our foreign policy or apologizing? Because the US didn't get the express permission of Communist China, Russia, and France to topple Saddam Hussein? That is, btw, in case people weren't aware, the obstacle to getting a 19th or whatever UN resolution explicitly authorizing force. China who slaughtered its own citizens in Tienenman square. Russia, who's busy becoming more authoritarian and France..well being France. That is what makes some people embarrassed? That we don't kiss up to these countries?

Since 9/11, I don't see anything the US has to be embarrassed about or needing to apologize for. We were attacked. We have responded by toppling the regime that was hosting Al Qaeda. We then toppled the regime that was most dangerous to the United States and geographically located very near Afghanistan and smacked dab in the middle of the Middle East where these whackos who keep wanting to murder us for Allah come from.  

At the same time we've been doing this we've increased our foreign aid to Africa. We've helped South Korea, China, and Japan deal with their problem with North Korea (contrary to some anti-Americans, North Korea isn't just the US's problem or even primarily the US's problem). We've helped the people in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we've made great progress in moving towards a free trade zone in the Western Hemisphere that is likely to help bring up living stardards in the developing world here.

It seems to me, if anything, the US, as a whole, has a lot to be proud of in its foreign policy.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Apr 06, 2004
U.S. foreign policy is both beneficial and destructive. I took Latin American history in high school. My teacher was not a leftist, but he had a very low regard for American foreign policy towards Latin America. In his opinion, the United States supported dictators over democracies, because democracies wanted the kind of reform that the lower class wanted. He was Cuban and foreign policy in regards to Cuba before Castro was very destructive. Castro was supported by middle class Cubans who wanted to get rid of Mafia corruption. Once he turned communist they left.

It is real easy to make a point if you only tell half of the story.
on Apr 06, 2004

I agree - the US foreign policy is mixed from a purely historical perspective. But one needs to look at the bigger picture. The US did some yucky things in Central America historically. But those things are minor compared to the good the US has done.

It is, btw, incorrect that the US preferred dictators. Like most countries, it preferred countries that served its interest. But all things being equal, the US has traditionally preferred democracies.

Your problem, Sherye is that you think your 2% of the story is actually half the story. It would be like saying "Sure, Mother Theresa did all these nice things, but she was once rude to her mother when she was a teenager." You have to keep events in perspective. You can't put "Saves world from Nazism and Communism" on the same level as "Props up strong man in Central America". 

Any thorough review of US actions in Central America, btw, are not nearly as clear cut as some leftists make it sound. Wheras you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany weren't clear cut dangers.

on Apr 06, 2004
Brad, while I, in general, agree with what you said, here's somethings that amuse, and ashame me about American Foreign Policy. The US sent millions of tons of grain to starving african nations, and then failed to provide any security for that grain, so it was immediately seized by African warlords. The US gives billions of dollars to "AIDS research", which principally goes to pharmaceutical companies. Not to sound "conspiratorial", but Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not finding a cure for a disease, but rather in finding treatments. Cures for diseases rarely come from drug companies. If anyone doubts they need only look at who sponsored the research for the polio vaccine, or penicilin. I'm not saying they would hide a cure, I'm just saying their primary motivation is not to find the cure. Very few deaths in Korea are due to military action. In fact, if you can name one this year, I'll be surprised. Not flabergasted, just surprised. There are very few non-US troops in Korea, that's true, but if you look as a proportion of their militaries, the percentage isn't too bad. Germany, for instance, is still limited in the size of their military because of the treaty with the allies. Poland, except for a spectacular showing of their horseman against the Panzers in the opening of the war, and a few pilots in the UK, did very little to fight the germans. In fact, records from the Ghettos indicate that a good many poles helped with varying degrees of willingness in the persectution, and execution of the Jewish populations of town like Krakow.

Finally, Marshall plan aid, which is what I refer to most aid given at this point because it closely resembles the old Marshall plan, is indeed aid given to various foreign countries. Aid which is primarily in the form of contracts to US companies to go out and build roads, dams, etc. Sure it's great for them, but it really doesn't hurt us either.

My favorite example is my brother, who lives in an "undisclosed third world Asian nation", undisclosed because he doesn't want me to talk about his project. Which, in part, installs HP computers in the courthouses of the above Asian country, so that their records can now be automated and there can exist a level of communication, via the internet, between them. All the supplies come from US companies, and except for the money that he and the other members of the project pay for hotels, apartments, and food, no actual currency enters the system from the US government.

Cheers
on Apr 06, 2004
Brad you can toot your own horn if you like but I think it's entirely possible for the US's foreign policy to be screwing one person while helping another. It's a no-brainer really. Of course the US has done good in the world. Of course they've advanced society and they have helped mankind in many ways. However, they also do some pretty nasty stuff in order to maintain it's control over the regions of the world. Their policy of sanctions against Iraq sentenced many innocent Iraqis to death, including (they estimate) 500,000 children. That's not nice. You know what I mean? Even though they've done good that doesn't excempt the fact of their other actions.
on Apr 06, 2004
You don't know what I think, Brad, I sad that American Foreign Policy is both destructive and constructive. I didn't measure the amounts. Chile isn't in Latin America.
on Apr 06, 2004
I meant Chile isn't in Central America.
on Apr 07, 2004

Their policy of sanctions against Iraq sentenced many innocent Iraqis to death, including (they estimate) 500,000 children.

You know, this myth has been popped so many times it always amazes me when someone still blabs it out. There is no evidence whatsoever of 500,000 deaths. Those were all propaganda numbers from Saddam's regime. You may not be aware of this but Saddam's gone now and the NGOs have been in there for awhile. If you have 500,000 deaths you'd have mass graves of starving children. They didn't find that. But they did find a children's prison. Also, billions of dollars from the oil for food program were stolen by Saddam. A billion or so was found in cash by US troops.  So now, sanctions did not sentence thousadns of Iraqi children to death. 

And Sherye - you name Chile. That's one country. That's your example to try to prove a generalization?

on Apr 07, 2004
Brad,
do you really look on the US with such rose tinted glasses or have you purposely exaggerated their benevolence to make a point? I think you are spending too much of your article focussing on the past and not enough on the present.

Is the US foreign policy of today beneficial overall?

Most of the US aids money is actually being given to US companies. While better and cheaper drugs are indeed desired some African companies actually had to break patent laws and start producing cheaper imitation drugs before the US relented on this. It's protecting it's own.

As pointed out most US foreign aid goes to US contractors. Many African countries have refused US grain because it's genetically modified (and the US refuses to send non GM grain). The previous Haiti president was placed in power by the US. And as for Serbia, it was the Europeans which pulled the US into the fight through Nato. Nice of you to rewrite history here. In Siera Leone it's a UN force there at the moment not a French one. Can't say the same about Iraq can we? As for trade, the US is far more protectionist than 4 years ago. Free trade to the US means buy our products and we won't buy yours. Just look at all the WTO complaints.

I'm not saying that all current US policy is bad, only that many other countries view US foreign policy over the past 4 years as being very poor.

Paul.
on Apr 07, 2004
Oh, and while we're at it, let's step over the CIA backing of Bin Laden's holy warriors, shall we?
on Apr 07, 2004
The US does what's in the interest of its ruling elites. Sometimes this is beneficial to other countries. But it doesn't act out of altruism, no country does. The US is no better or worse than France or Britain, it just happens to be the mega-power at the moment. The problem with American power is the noun, not the adjective.
on Apr 07, 2004
Now for the nitpicking

"The US helps ensure the freedom of countries like Taiwan."

Not that simple. The US plays China and Taiwan off each other. At best the US is a part-time ally of Taiwan. The US supported the government in Taiwan when it was a dictatorship. In the election last month the US virtually demanded that Taiwan not hold a referendum on defence against Chinese missiles. That's hardly ensuring freedom.

"Even today, 25,000 Americans are there. And while it's convenient to fixate on every American combat casualty in Iraq, there are occasionally deaths in Korea near the DMZ zone. It's not a fun place. "

It's actually 37 000. There hasn't been a US combat casualty in the DMZ since the 1980s. Have you been to the DMZ? It's not so bad.

"France..well being France"

That's not an argument. What's your problem with France? Is it coz they wouldn't back America's invasion of Iraq? They weren't the only ones, why does France get special vitriol?

Why no mention of Cambodia in your blog?
on Apr 07, 2004
"Oh, and while we're at it, let's step over the CIA backing of Bin Laden's holy warriors, shall we?"

Why don't you go into the reason for backing the rebels in Afghanistan at the time. Wasn't it to help defeat the Soviet Union? Don't you think that was important at the time?
on Apr 07, 2004
Island dog: Colin Powell delivered the check to the Taliban in [May]2001 for continued U.S. support.

Brad: You really should stick to programming. The very statement is fraught with the thought of failure for Americans of too many variety to toot Bush's horn on that. You apparently did not wiTness -as I did by cam in Trafalgar Square - the RECORD crowds with Bush in effigy. While your American 'controlled-media' told you, "There was a minor demonstration in Britain today", Blair was reading Bush the riot act as to attempting to have 'free-speech' zones erected on British soil to censor dissent. The President of the United States was flown to dinner in a helicopter to avoid the massive crowds, whisked out of Downing to narrowly escape them. Not a popular guy.

Comparing American foreign policy to China's is also a tactic you take to its' extreme. Since when does a President of the United States of America have to be compared with a Chinese Dictator to be described as having 'good' foreign policy? AIDS money for Africa? Why aren't we in the Sudan saving kids by 'building democracy', as we are in Iraq? Hypocricy in the name of oil, that's why, and everyone knows it, from China to Sudan - I mean everyone but you and a few book-holders here.

My fellow American, open your eyes and turn off the 'Fox' tv that feeds you this propoganda. This country is now one bullet through a window of a mosque from starting armageddon under this Skull& Bones frat brother A. {Have no doubt that the Mossad is in route with a bullet or two now] I can think of only George Washington, in his betrayal of our French allies, as having made a worse foreign policy decision in all American history. Haitti, hell we caused Haitti to happen, go read and learn.

We've got a 'terror status' alert code under our television screens now due to this President's foreign policy and his 'endless war'. Mexico may well agree with you as Bush doesn't miss a chance to let El Presidente Foxe kick back in his chair, put his feet up and tell Bush WHAT he'll do FOR Mexico ILLEGAL immigrants next.

I could go on and on. It's too easy, like fish in a barrel to show how wrong you are on this one.

FOUR MORE YEARS? yeah RIGHT !! Only with a 'Diebold' voting machine.
on Apr 07, 2004

As pointed out most US foreign aid goes to US contractors. Many African countries have refused US grain because it's genetically modified (and the US refuses to send non GM grain). The previous Haiti president was placed in power by the US. And as for Serbia, it was the Europeans which pulled the US into the fight through Nato. Nice of you to rewrite history here. In Siera Leone it's a UN force there at the moment not a French one. Can't say the same about Iraq can we? As for trade, the US is far more protectionist than 4 years ago. Free trade to the US means buy our products and we won't buy yours. Just look at all the WTO complaints.

US foreign aid doesn't all go to contractors. When a given project needs to b edone by a company then it goes to a company and it's typically a US company. Should we be apologizing for that? Come on.  The previous Haitian President was put in power by the US.  He was elected by his people. It was only after he was in that it became apparent that he wasn't much better than a dictator. Again, at least the United STates is TRYING to help. I don't see France or Germany helping. 

I like how you give credit to the Europeans because they got the US involved in Serbia. This is akin to the Simpsons episode where they give Ralph Wiggim the credit for saving the day because it was his idea to ask Lisa to come up with a plan. And in Ivory Coast it was the French who invaded it during the run up to the gulf war. That's a fact. 

I would bet that the force in Iraq is more internationalized than the force in Ivory Coast. How many countries are participating in Iraq? Even Ukraine has troops in Iraq. But oh no, France isn't there so it's not proper.

US trade is *slightly* more protectionist than it was 4 years ago. There was a steel tarrif that is in the process of being repealed. Can you name anything else? It's still less protectionist than the European ecnoomies.

One thing about thse responses is how lacking in substance they are. The US haters just are that -- US haters. All emotion and no substance.

Look at Danny - posting how somehow Bin Laden was our fault because we aided Afghanistan in its fight with the Soviet Union. Sheesh.

Or even your argument, Solitaire -- the best you can say is that countries don't like US foreign policy. So? Name some concrete stuff here. And name stuff that actually involves a consensus.  Based on the US haters, you'd think the invasion of Iraq was internationally hated by everyone. And yet dozens of countries have troops there.  The UK is there, Poland is there, Spain was there, various latin american countries have troops there, Ukraine is there, Japan is there.  But somehow none of that matters if we don't have the approval of the French? Please. And that's one reason why I don't like the French. It's government is a cynical cowardly lot. From their collusion with Nazi Germany in World War II to their cynical attempt to take over the Suez Canal to their creation of the Vietnam mess in the first place to their bullshit about "war is never the answer" as they send troops into Ivory Coast. And yet the America haters somehow follow whatever line France sends out for some unknown reason. And spare me the "US puts Taiwan and China against each other." That's utter nonsense. It would be a lot easier for the US to just let China go ahead and conquer Taiwan. After all, that's France's position.

So where's the substance from the US haters? What specific US actions can be considered something that even remotely counters all the good the United States does in the world? Has done, continues to do. Someone explain objectivley how the invasion of Iraq was "bad". Regardless of whether you agree with th ereasons, can anyone honestly say that Iraqi people aren't better off now? The billions in aid we sent throughout the world, etc.  Oh no, the food we send is genetically modified. We eat GM food here in the US every day. So what we eat isn't good enough for Africa? No. The Africans who don't accept GM food don't do so because they fear it may end up getting grown there and then they won't be able to sell it to Europe. So good for Europe, they're helping contribute to starvation in Africa by their supersticious views on GM.

If as a whole someone feels the US should be embarassed of US foreign policy. To even apologize for it, then let's hear what we need to apologize for. Specifically. I certainly feel no need to apologize for saving people from ethnic cleansing, plastic shredders, starvation, AIDS, invasions by tyrants. Even if doing so doesn't get the approval of a couple of minor European nations.

on Apr 07, 2004
Brad: supplying religious idiots with weapons is not the same as aiding a people in its fight against the Soviet Union. You can easily blame the problems in the middle east on former colonization France & the UK, just don't step over the results of US 'colonialism', for lack of a better word. Policing the globe when it's a fight against communism and stepping away as soon as the former allies have seized power and start suppressing their own people is part of the reason I'd call some of the US foreign policies a failure.
3 Pages1 2 3