What should be the basis of foreign policy?

Page 1 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

05 May 2012, 9:45 pm

The subject-line says everything. To add clarification, there are many debates in the purposes and policies to be undertaken in foreign policy.

Realists believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the strict national interest of a nation, and that the central concerns are things like the balance of power, such that stability between the power-levels of nations is arrived at. The point of a realist foreign policy is to conserve strength, avoid attack, and avoid dominance by a foreign power.

Neoconservatives believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the need to spread democratic values both as a moral concern and as a way to stabilize the world. To this end, they believe in national efforts to invade nations to spread democracy/human rights and to spread democracy/human rights by other needs as necessary, and are willing to accept unilateral efforts to this moral end.

Internationalist Idealists believe that foreign policy should be driven by international bodies/international agreements motivated by laws, notions of justice/fairness, and who seek to maintain order using multilateral diplomacy, world opinion, and economic policy.

Isolationists believe that foreign policies should be avoided. This may be driven by national interest, or it may be driven by moral concerns. Instead, a nation should simply avoid the entire entangling mess and be neutral, and set trade policies by internal factors, not external ones.

Obvious the issue is more complicated than what I've put forward, and I didn't even bother to break things down into normative and positive views on the matter. However, I did want to solicit feedback. What are forum poster thoughts?



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 May 2012, 9:53 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The subject-line says everything. To add clarification, there are many debates in the purposes and policies to be undertaken in foreign policy.

Realists believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the strict national interest of a nation, and that the central concerns are things like the balance of power, such that stability between the power-levels of nations is arrived at. The point of a realist foreign policy is to conserve strength, avoid attack, and avoid dominance by a foreign power.

Neoconservatives believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the need to spread democratic values both as a moral concern and as a way to stabilize the world. To this end, they believe in national efforts to invade nations to spread democracy/human rights and to spread democracy/human rights by other needs as necessary, and are willing to accept unilateral efforts to this moral end.

Internationalist Idealists believe that foreign policy should be driven by international bodies/international agreements motivated by laws, notions of justice/fairness, and who seek to maintain order using multilateral diplomacy, world opinion, and economic policy.

Isolationists believe that foreign policies should be avoided. This may be driven by national interest, or it may be driven by moral concerns. Instead, a nation should simply avoid the entire entangling mess and be neutral, and set trade policies by internal factors, not external ones.

Obvious the issue is more complicated than what I've put forward, and I didn't even bother to break things down into normative and positive views on the matter. However, I did want to solicit feedback. What are forum poster thoughts?


I am a very strong Independent are views are pretty simple even though the left or right will not agree with them/ Amer­i­cans should sup­port Amer­ica first, last, and always. If you want to act as a for­eign agent and sup­port another coun­try, often at odds with the U.S. and Amer­i­can inter­ests, declare your allegience so every­one is clear on where you stand. And, if you really think Israel first, please move to Israel.



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 792

05 May 2012, 10:46 pm

I'm a non-interventionist. I think we should try to have free trade, but not get involved in foreign problems.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 May 2012, 10:47 pm

CSBurks wrote:
I'm a non-interventionist. I think we should try to have free trade, but not get involved in foreign problems.


Same here you can have all the free trade you want. But I do not wish to get involed in foreign problems but America loves to do that.



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 792

05 May 2012, 10:53 pm

And these neocons and interventionists wonder why Al-Qaeda wants to blow us up.

"They hate us for our freedom." Ridiculous.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 May 2012, 11:06 pm

Because we are supporters of Israel they hate us for that very reason any nation that supports Israel Al-Qaeda hates period. If China started to support Israel then Al-Qaeda would never be brave enough to attack China because China would just whipe them all out like ants.



Aelfwine
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 184

06 May 2012, 5:41 am

Quote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The subject-line says everything. To add clarification, there are many debates in the purposes and policies to be undertaken in foreign policy.

Realists believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the strict national interest of a nation, and that the central concerns are things like the balance of power, such that stability between the power-levels of nations is arrived at. The point of a realist foreign policy is to conserve strength, avoid attack, and avoid dominance by a foreign power.

Neoconservatives believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the need to spread democratic values both as a moral concern and as a way to stabilize the world. To this end, they believe in national efforts to invade nations to spread democracy/human rights and to spread democracy/human rights by other needs as necessary, and are willing to accept unilateral efforts to this moral end.

Internationalist Idealists believe that foreign policy should be driven by international bodies/international agreements motivated by laws, notions of justice/fairness, and who seek to maintain order using multilateral diplomacy, world opinion, and economic policy.

Isolationists believe that foreign policies should be avoided. This may be driven by national interest, or it may be driven by moral concerns. Instead, a nation should simply avoid the entire entangling mess and be neutral, and set trade policies by internal factors, not external ones.

Obvious the issue is more complicated than what I've put forward, and I didn't even bother to break things down into normative and positive views on the matter. However, I did want to solicit feedback. What are forum poster thoughts?


It would be even for realists good when they had good partners.
Dictatorships want to have the power and strength to dominate other countries (Nazi-Germany, China).
It would be better in the long term to change these countries into partner countries (support opposition)
But it isn't clever to invade countries, to bring them democracy and rights.
It is only good when inside of this countrie are many persons who want their freedom and fight against the government.
It's always better when a population reaches a democracy on their own. Other countries should just help.
I think trade with dictationships is okay. Because trade means contact to the population of this country.
If the standard of living in a country grows, the population would also try to get better education. When the people get a moderate prosperity, they become more and more interested in politics.
A democracy which is not supported by the population can't overlife.
I like international organisations or cooperation to solute our problems. But every countrie should decide for themselve to cooperate.
Many problems on the world are problems for everybody. It isn't possible to sollute them allone.
But if a country decidet to want to be isolated, it is important to accept this (switzerland).
But it would be terrible when an big country like the USA would decide to ignore the problems of the world.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

06 May 2012, 6:58 am

Joker wrote:
Because we are supporters of Israel they hate us for that very reason any nation that supports Israel Al-Qaeda hates period. If China started to support Israel then Al-Qaeda would never be brave enough to attack China because China would just whipe them all out like ants.


Germany also openly supports Israel, as do most other European countries. And yet, the Muslim world doesn't seem to hate us. We've managed to maintain friendly foreign relationships with most Muslim countries. Even with Iran, although the economic sanctions against them are putting some strain on the diplomatic ties.

There must be more reasons for the resentment that many Islamic countries seem to harbor against the USA. It could be the fact that the U.S. military is all over the globe. I mean, American soldiers are currently deployed in approx. 2/3 of all countries on this planet. Or perhaps it's the unjustified invasions of countries such as Grenada, Panama or Iraq, as well as the talk of American conservatives about invading even more countries.

Or the fact that the USA is directly responsible for the overthrow of at least 6 democratically elected governments (among them Iran in 1953, ironically), as well as several non-elected governments that were replaced by brutal dictators. Of course the USA has also freed countries in the past, but in many cases, the meddling of the U.S. government in the affairs of other nations has changed things for the worse. Some countries are understandably resentful and worried that they will be the next target of U.S. military or CIA intervention, and extremist groups in those countries channel this resentment into open aggression and terrorist attacks.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,880

06 May 2012, 7:06 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Germany also openly supports Israel, as do most other European countries.


There's a difference between "supporting Israel" (acknowledging its right to exist) and "supporting Israel" (being willing to attack a country with a pre-emptive nuclear strike because it might pose a threat to Israel in the future).



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

06 May 2012, 7:20 am

The European nations have pretty much stopped massacring each other, and are seeing the advantages of mutual cooperation. It isn't perfect yet, but at least they aren't sending their young men off to die in trenches.

The USA is fairly fortunate in not having a neighbor that could pose a credible threat.

The world is much more inter-dependent than previously. Without China, the Bush tax cuts would have been much more immediately disastrous. And, without China, we wouldn't be able to buy so many things at Walmart. Very few of us would be able to afford a personal computer.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

06 May 2012, 7:25 am

Declension wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Germany also openly supports Israel, as do most other European countries.


There's a difference between "supporting Israel" (acknowledging its right to exist) and "supporting Israel" (being willing to attack a country with a pre-emptive nuclear strike because it might pose a threat to Israel in the future).


We also support Israel with weapons and financial assets. Granted, most of our financial support until 2007 were reparations that we owed to Israel, but that cannot be said about our weapon deliveries. Or the advanced submarines that we've donated to Israel, which can be equipped with nuclear weapons. Then again, we also sell large amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia to balance the distribution of military power :? (as does the USA).



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

06 May 2012, 8:02 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Then again, we also sell large amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia to balance the distribution of military power :? (as does the USA).


Also, luxury cars.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

06 May 2012, 8:15 am

I'd be an International Idealist. I support democracy, of course, but do not think that the West has the right to overthrow governments in order to get it there. That far too easily leads to things like the overthrow of Salvador Allende's government in Chile. I'm also highly cynical about current international economic policy. I think that the IMF and WTO are currently tending to hurt developing countries and that they are violating these countries' soveriegnty. In essence they are forcing neoliberalism on these countries. That is something for the country itself to decide, not the Western world that would benefit from such policies.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

06 May 2012, 8:35 am

i think too amny people focus on the foreign when their own countriesd are running ragged.

with the state of international beurocracy being what it is today that would mean most western countries, probably more but i know less about those countries.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

06 May 2012, 8:40 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Then again, we also sell large amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia to balance the distribution of military power :? (as does the USA).


Also, luxury cars.


True :) We've probably sold them more bullet-proof Mercedes limousines than Leopard tanks.