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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Apr 09, 2004
well that would mean a lot fewer sweatshops around the world sewing nike trainers on slave labour wages.
go for it.
on Apr 09, 2004

One thing I do want to make clear: I don't think the United States is an angel by any means.

And in fact, I think the United States pursues its self-interest quite vigorously.

However, I think that the way the United States has defined its self interest has been done in a way in which other countries happen to benefit.

Let me give you an example: During the European imperial age, the belief was that nations needed colonies to supply raw goods. Getting colonies required conquest, subjugation, etc. Not nice stuff.

The US, by contrast, defines its self interest by having a stable world order and prosperous countries to trade with. It doesn't *need* raw materials (and despite those uneducated enough to think we'd conquer a nation for its oil, oil is not worth conquering a country for, it's not valuable enough). So its policies have tended to be able ensuring global stability and creating markets for its products and services.

Sometimes that has meant supporting dictators and other goons who provide "stability". But usually it has meant the US defending countries being assaulted by others and trying to increase the overall propserity of the world.

In other words, the US strategy has been in its own self interest overall but its self interest has always been of benefit to the others. What is good for the US, as a generalization, has also been good for the world.

Since 9/11, the United States has recognized clearly that backing dictators because of stability is not the way to go. That the "freedom deficit" is coming back to bite us. The rise of Al Qaeda and other movements can be traced to this freedom deficit.

Which brings me to the irony: The same people who oppose the United STates having liberated Iraq from a monstrous dictator and attempting to create a democracy are the same people who complain that the United States supported dictators in the past.  Bush would be the first to say "Yea, it's wrong to support dictators. We need to start vigorously promoting freedom instead."

on Apr 12, 2004
Your timing was off by a few days for the article Brad, I think the reverse is happening..
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=1&u=/afp/attacks_iraq_alqaeda
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=1&u=/nm/iraq_neighbours_dc
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/iraq_us_arabs_reax

Brad buddy, do you see a pattern forming here?

T.

on Apr 13, 2004
I should clarify a few of my feeling here before I continue.

I believe any foreign aid is good.
I believe the fewer conditions attached to foreign aid the better.
I supported the war in iraq.
I don't believe in using history to justify current actions.

With that said, I believe that US foreign policy is slowly changing for the worse (from a non US perspective).
Over the past few years more and more aid has come with political conditions. Financial and stability conditions I have no problems with, but political conditions can backfire because of the anger they generate. There is a lot of anger with the US for trying to weaken and destroy the international court through conditions attached to aid. It gives the impression that the US believes it is above the law. It can do what it wants when it wants with no consequences.

People need to remember that foreign policy is about foreigners. It's not just about aid. It's about how your country interacts with other cuntries and how those countries see your countries. The fact that this article suggest foreign policy is beneficial overall just highlights the huge divide between the US's opinion of itself and what the rest of the planet actually thinks. If foreigners feel more dislike and hate towards the US today than 4 years ago then foreign policy is failing. Sadly, this is indeed the case.

Paul.
on Apr 24, 2004
So, it was wrong to teach the Afghanis to resist the Soviet invasion? Can you imagine what would have happened if the Soviets would have conquered that territory and built a pipeline between themselves and some Axis- and Communist-loving oil sumps? Suffice it to say that the Cold War would not be history, but current events.

It is unfortunate that UBL utilized his training against the country that taught him how to stand up for himself. Much like how we sent weapons to Iraq after the Iranian hostage crisis in order to help Iraqis kill Iranians, it seemed like a good idea at the time. And, along that same line of thought, can you imagine how the Middle East would be today if we had allowed the fanatic Iranian Muslims to reunify Persia by conquering Iraq? Talk about king of the oil sump ...

I hope all of those who blindly embraced running to the UN for permission to act in our own interests are watching the Oil for Food scandal unfold. I find it more than ironic that the countries and institutions that opposed acting in Iraq also had much to lose (kickbacks and anonymity) by having the books opened.

As for many other posters on both sides of the political fence, if your take on world events is anything like your spelling and grammar, you have a lot to learn. How can you expect to convince others when your command of the English language leaves something to be desired? This is especially true for those whose native language is English.

Pam, I think the Romans would see the beginning of the end in our country - the gluttony, political corruption, selfishness, and ignorance of what happens outside the city walls surely led to their downfall. There are parallels.

Vinnie
3 Pages1 2 3