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 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Apr 07, 2004
Brad,
there is nothing wrong with the US paying it's companies to do work. Just don't go flagging a $10 Billion aids figure around as if you've done Africa a favour. You haven't ... Yet. Maybe that $10 Billion will come up with cheaper drugs or even a cure but it's not aid it's investment in US companies. No apology needed, just don't claim it's something else.

Brad, France SENT troops to Haiti!!!! At least check the facts before you take an oppertunity to snipe at them. To quote "...concerning the sending of this peace force, we support a political solution, within the context of the United Nations," a French foreign ministry spokeswoman said. "I believe we are in full convergence of opinion with the United States on this." Surely even the US media reported that France had sent troops? Why do you seem to hate France so much?

The European governments requested a NATO force for the Balkans. They had to call an emmergency meeting of NATO to do so. Considering the US is oppossed to the EU having it's own military force, it's very rich of you to suggest that it was wrong of them to call on their NATO allies for assistance. That's what NATO is about shared responsibilities. Stop trying to belittle NATO's actions by suggesting it was the US that had to act. The US didn't act till asked to act as part of NATO where the UK already had a proposed plan of action.

What do you mean by 'internationalised'? Is this meaning more foreign countries or a degree of international legality? The Ivory coast peace keeping mission has been voted upon and supported by the entire UN. Interestingly the US initially oppossed the 6000 man peace keeping force, despite not being part of it. Of those 4000 were French (already there), 1000 were from other African nations, and 1000 from other nations. On top of this 150 police officers are also present. Number of countries involved is currently 18. So 18 countries, under a UN controlled peace keeping mission (approved by the entire UN). Sounds pretty internationalised.

On the trade front there are the new tariffs on Chinese products and there is the ongoing refusal to remove foreign trade subsidies. The last round of world trade talks clearly showed a huge protectionist desire on agriculture, but the EU is as guiltly of that.

This is not a US hating post Brad. It's factual and full of data. Please stop assuming that people who disagree with something automatically hate that country. I personally supported the war in Iraq. I certainly did not supprot the US's attempts to villanise France and Russia for not agreeing on WMD though. I still don't understand what you have against France? Why yet again do you attack their history? I know the Iraqi people are currently better off. Doesn't change the fact that they want the US gone and over 77% have no trust in the occupying forces. But to specifics. What may the US have to apologise for from the past four years?

Lies.

The US lied to the world time and time again over WMD. They knowlingly lied about Iraq attempting to gain nuclear technology. They attempted to manipulate the world into the war under false pretenses and to date have not apologised for their behaviour.
The US tried to use 1441 as an excuse to invade Iraq and actively encouraged the lie that it allowed them to invade.

breach of international treaties

The US has broken human right treaties, both in Afganistan and Guantanamo bay. It has put it's desire for revenge against terrorists above the basic human rights of people and as such has lost respect and especially trust.
The international court is legally binding under UN rules once signed by enough signatories. The US has attempted at every hurdle to thrash this treaty and has put emmense pressure on individual countries to block it. It still refuses to accept that it has become law and refuses to recognise it.
The US has breached it's UN treaties to go to war only in self defense or with UN approval. It consistantly refuses to hand over control of peace keeping duties to the intrnational community, fooling itself that some degree of authority is derived from international presence. It is still in breach of Un treaties and is defined as an occupying power.
US attempts to interfere with the soveign rights of other countries (Columbia for example).

Undesireable decisions (but perfectly within the US's right to make)
The US has cancelled its weapon proliferation treaties
The US disagrees with most of the planet on environmental issues

It's a long list Brad. You seem to be letting your anger at Europeans commenting on the US cloud your objectiveness. And before you say it, many European countries also have much to answer for in the last few years, but this article is about US foreign policy.

paul.
on Apr 07, 2004
"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."

You ask for specifics, but then you dismiss specific points as "utter nonsense". Using Taiwan to limit Chinese influence is long-standing US policy. Maybe one day the US will green light a Chinese invasion, at the minute that would be bad for business. France's position is the same as America's - no unilateral change in the status quo, hence both countries' opposition to the referendum.

Still nothing to say about Cambodia?
on Apr 07, 2004
How is supplying someone with weapons not helping them fight a war? It's easy to take the collapse of the USSR for granted now, but that country was a far bigger threat than Al Qaeda will ever be.

What did colonial France or Britain ever do that is on the same scale as the Marshall plan?

After WWI, one of the US's main goals for the treaty of Versailles was the expansion of democracy. France's main goal was large cash payments from Germany.

What has France done to promote democracy in Iraq?

I have to agree that, "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."
on Apr 07, 2004
"Colin Powell delivered the check to the Taliban in [May]2001 for continued U.S. support."

The "check" you say was distributed through the U.N., you know the guys the left love so much, and bypassed the Taliban to provide humanitarian relief for the Afghan. I know you heard differently on the conspircay theory site though.

"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. "

Of course, blame Fox. I guess you get your news from DNCNN. Does that mean John Kerry is going to start Armegeddon because he's a member of Skull & Bones also.

"We've got a 'terror status' alert code under our television screens now due to this President's foreign policy and his 'endless war'. "

So Bush started the "endless" war on terror. That is just plain stupid. The terror status alert you have on your tv should have started back when the WTC was attacked the first time. I guess the foreign policy you rather have is appeasement and just letting terrorists and dictators freely do what they want. The war on terror started many years ago, the only problem is we didn't have a President who would fight back.

Remember, whoever Osama would vote for, vote for the other person.

on Apr 07, 2004
The US supplying Afghanistan is a lot like the British supplying Afghanistan, it happened under different circumstances. The leaders at the time mistakenly believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and that turned out bad for the two countries.

Cheers
on Apr 07, 2004
Once again, I'm astounded by Brad Wardell's insight into a matter that few have the guts to discuss with passion. Perhaps a few of those spewing the notion that the US is truly the world's bully are merely uninformed?
on Apr 07, 2004
You're right Miss, Paul and I have certainly done nothing to try and disseminate facts in this blog. By the way, we're not calling Brad wrong, just not entirely correct.

Cheers
on Apr 07, 2004
I know it's an older comment, but even if the 500,000 deaths from sanctions is accurate, doesn't that further justify an invasion on the grounds that containment was a failure? Saddam was unwilling to allow oil revenues from the oil-for-food program to actually go to food and medicine, so his people starved. With contaniment out the window, the only options left were appeasement (lift the sanctions, let Saddam go on his merry way) and regime change.

on Apr 08, 2004
Madine,
I can totally accept the US's historical decision to support the lesser evil (Taliban) against the greater evil (USSR), but that's history and nothing to do with current US forign policy. Same with the treaty of Versailles. As for the Marshall plan, it spent 13 billion dollars. Of that 1.5 billion was repaid as loans and an estimated 6 billion was given directly to US companies within Europe. So that leaves 5.5 billion spent on aid. Nearly 0.5 billion was spent on providing free postage for Americans sending personal aid to Europeans back home (often to family). 3 Billion was spent on infrastructure and the remaining 2 Billion was spent on personal (relocations, training etc) and medical expenses. So in reality it was a 5.5 billion pound aid package over 4 years. Ciompared against the US GDP at the time that amounts to 223 billion it means 2.2%. Currrently France and Germany BOTH provide almost 1% (UN guideline is 0.7%) of GDP EVERY year to aid, that 4% over a 4 year period. US provides 0.1%. The Marshal plan was unique for it's time and badly needed in Europe. It was revolutionary and must be praised. Many people today fail to realise though that compared to current European foreign aid budgets, it's was fairly small. Compared to current US foreign aid budgets it was very large. So you are wrong. France and Germany every year give twice as much foreign aid that the marshall plan did. The US gives 1/6.
As for France promoting democracy in Iraq, it has promised thousands of troops so long as they are part of a UN peace keeping mission. It has also cancelled nearly 2 billion dollars in debt that Iraq owed it.


marfoeblog,
I have no problems with the invasion of Iraq. It should have happened much earlier. I did have problems with the attempt to hoodwink the international community into believing it was about WMD. I also have problems with the US's plan for Iraq, it's attempt to impose a puppet government as oppossed to allowing the Iraqi's free elections. One man one vote sounds like a fairly reasonable request from the Iraqis. I especially have a problem with people villanising other countries like France and Spain, when both have promised troops IF the US hands control to a UN peace keeping force. Russia, China and many other countries (especialyl muslim countries) have also indicated they would send troops if it was under a UN operation. The US is being pig headed here and pride (and possibly a desire to control Iraqi resources) is what's stopping it doing what's best for the people of Iraq.


Paul.
on Apr 08, 2004
The Marshall plan looks alot smaller when you cut it in half. When you say "money is given to companies" that makes it sound like they received a gift. Why is it not considered legitimate foreign aid if money is paid to a company to provide goods or services to a country? Certainly the company benefits, but that money could have just as easily been spent on providing something domestically. Also, in comparing contemporary French and German aid to the Marshall plan, did you also exclude French and German aid that was to be repaid as loans or was given directly to corporations?
on Apr 08, 2004
Oh, by God, run for the hills, and mountains, hide in the forrest because here comes the big bad U.S.A. Their going to use that big bad foreign policy and aid of their's to do terrible things to us. There is no country on this planet which hasn't done something wrong, however, the U.S. is at the time on top, so it is easy for all to critize its policies. It is like the old saying, "Ten atta boys, can be wiped out with one ayyy. . . shit." "Glass house."

Brad, The choir has left.

Great debate. It is always good to see how people feel, and this is a topic that brings out the best and worst in all of us. Sure would be interesting to hear or read what the Romans might thing of our Great Nation.

Pam

on Apr 08, 2004
Madine,
the Marshall plan was a very beneficial plan with ground breaking results. It's what many foreign aid policies try to replicate. It was not in absolute terms an expensive plan though. To answer your questions, companies did recieve a gift. The US paid for the rebuilding of many American companies which were bombed or desroyed inthe war. A good example would be Ford who had the US government pay to rebuild their damaged and destroyed factories during the war. Even if you neglect that much money was gifted to US companies and not Europeans, and neglect that some was in loans, and look at the entire 13.5 billion, this still only equates to about 1.25% of GDP a year. France pays nearly 1% EVERY year (this is aid not loans or gifts t oFrench companies abroard). Not just for 4 years.

You asked what did France ever do of the scale of the Marshall plan and I answered. I'm not belittling the Marshall plan, just trying to stop you falsely believing that France has not done similar. I'm unsure as to why you thought they had?

Paul.
on Apr 08, 2004
I've been quietly reading from the background for a bit, but I gotta say this.
Nobody is perfect. No country, no government, no PERSON. Some are better than others, some are worse. Can any of you state a reason why the US should not look out for itself and protect its interests?

Fine, you have a problem with our foreign aid? That's great. Let us withdrawl completely from foreign affairs. We need time to spend fixing our own nation without worrying about what some damn foreigner has to complain about. What then? How long would things go on? Would the rest of the world decay or prosper? We don't know until we do it, but I bet there would be a lot of begging for assistance, then. We're not perfect as a country, but you'll miss what you've got when it is gone.
on Apr 09, 2004
Hi BW. I found you through a google search to answer an XP problem I was having. You did. TY! I hope to browse some more of you aritcles, maybe even join up.

And on this entry... It was interesting, well written, the first current-events entry of yourse I've read. But IMO... I consider it disingenuous to buttress one's own position by ommitting significant facts. Though it has become an all too common and accepted practice by all sides, especially as positions get harder and more polarized.

No mention of the largest US Aid recipient, Israel. Even though Israel has one of the wealthiest countries, per capita, has the most powerful military in the region and nuclear weapons. As a percentage of GDP, the US is one of the least generous donars. And a footnote: most US aid comes in the form of military, security aid with strings (US weapons purchases, UN votes, troops to Iraq), whereas most other countries give in the form of humanitarian aid. As to how effective German and Japanese aid (who give by far the most humanitarian aid) I don't know. You can counter-argue that American foreign aid numbers are unfairly low until you add military assistance on behalf of UN and other countries, in NATO, Iraq, Bosnia, South Korea, etc, and come up with a number closer to the more generous nations - by providing the tangible service of worldwide security and policemen.

I don't think the US is wrong, and there is no need to apologize. But the US does not do more than other countries wrt foreign aid. We do what we are willing, and are pretty self-serving when helping other countries (which is fine) -- which makes the $10B AIDs grant very out of character and surprising. It will be a great thing as long as it isn't some crooked drug company rip-off. No congressman ever ran and won an election running on giving more foreign aid.
3 Pages1 2 3