What should be the basis of foreign policy?

Post Reply New Topic

Realists, neo-cons and internationalists can all advocate for the same war. Often times the same person uses all three arguments and sees which one sticks.

That's a good way of looking at it. There's a reason why foreign policy never changes in this country.

A lot of people don't associate the Democratic party with war after opposing the Bush administration but the fact of the matter is that historically Democrats were the ones to get us involved in these wars before the neoconservative(former leftist themselves) took over of the GOP.

I feel so remorseful for all the arabs and non arab people living in the middel east if America would just let them run their country the way. They want it to be ran we their could be peace in the middel east.

Unless you have some information I am unaware of, the US merely puts out bonds, and various investing groups decide to buy those bonds. The fact that it's China is just a matter of how the world currently works. Most US debt is held internally though.

Size doesn't matter, it's how you use it.

China couldn't make war with any nation. Some nations are important for China's economic interests(or are allies with nations important for Chinese economic interests), so war with them would cause a massive economic disruption. Other nations have nuclear missiles. Finally, the US probably could take on the Chinese in certain situations, simply because the US specializes in surgical strikes and tactics that are excellent at overwhelming technologically inferior forces. Finally, as I have, and as other people have, China has no real ability to project its power at a long-distance, as that requires a large set of logistical problems, as well as a very powerful navy. Both of which can easily be chipped away by technologically superior forces.

Size doesn't matter, it's how you use it.

That's what she said

I tend neoconservative, just that I think war is clearly an absolute last-ditch resort and that we should be doing anything possible to undermine an enemy's strength. In places in the middle-east that means that overthrowing a regime probably won't get you too far, will likely make things worse, and you're better off supporting things that challenge the local ideology (ie. fight with the pen).

True but the US has overthrown regimes in the past and put people in power that was worse then the people they helped get out of power.

War in the developing world cutting into a multinational's profits is still in practice a worth it if that's what it takes for peace.

I don't think that multinational corporations are really at fault or responsible for WTO or IMF actions though. From what I've seen, both bodies are as much a matter of international creation, and transnational political interaction as other bodies such as the UN. Both the WTO and IMF were founded on various ideals. Both the WTO and IMF have political actors from all sides of the aisle take leading positions in their organization. Not only that, but the WTO doesn't have direct corporate lobbying, and the IMF is really more driven by national contributions.

The fact that the IMF and WTO tend to recommend free trade is really very likely a matter of what the economists comprising both organizations are recommending, or the nations supporting these organizations are promoting. Maybe these economists are wrong, or even these nations have ideological errors, but I don't think a conspiracy is productive in that kind of criticism. Also, given the high status of free trade in the body of economics, I don't think that even if it is a mistake from an international development standpoint, it's a matter of wickedness or corruption. (I also don't think that promoting international trade is likely a mistake though. Maybe some implementations are mistakes, or certain actions involve short-run losses. However, I would think that the fastest route for growth for a nation would involve foreign direct investment, importing technology, and things where international resources were made available. (Note: Many people have criticized my views on development economics in the past. However, I actually did take a college level course in the subject. Cute ideas like "more education" and "more rights for women" really were not considered empirically supported by the rough aggregates. Just clearing the air on that matter though.)

Why the hell is "a conspiracy" needed to explain conflict of interest rather than good ol' fashion, non-conspiratorial, institutional analysis? There's three channels that can explain corporate influence over the IMF. One is that political actors, particularly in the US, are quite incentivized by corporate interests (and donations). Another is that the economics profession, to some extent, is a bit to "clubby" with certain businesses they study (consulting jobs are taken quite frequently taken by many top academic economists - http://nationalinterest.org/article/the ... -risk-3091 ). A third is that many IMF/WTO policies require cooperation with businesses, so that gives them substantial bargaining power.



What do you mean by "cute ideas" like "more rights for women" won't do it? Do you mean that the aren't as effective as direct foreign investment or do you mean that they have ZERO impact?

The problem is that standard institutional analysis will not particularly blame the IMF or the WTO, but rather it will admit that any organization in that situation will make the same kinds of mistakes for reasons that are justifiable in that context.

So, if the US or other nations are influenced by corporate interests, then that will likely impact ANY POSSIBLE international body, as any international body will have to be put in place and power by national actors. (Including the UN)

If economists are captured by business interests, this will undermine ANY POTENTIAL organization to fill that gap, simply because economists are the body of experts with the relevant knowledge.

Finally, if policies require cooperation with businesses, and these policies are justifiable on their own grounds, then this is simply politics as usual.

In none of these cases does the failing land on the WTO or IMF any more than it could on any other possible organization seeking to make the economic world a better place. Similar concerns motivate cynicism towards Internationalist Idealism outright. Frankly though, if we're talking just about free trade, I don't think that these answers really are sufficient. M_P(sorry, I confused you with somebody else) we both know that free trade is very widely considered a justified idea with various studies cited in various textbooks. Maybe you think there are methodological failings in those studies, but many of the premises supporting intra-national trade also support international trade.


I mean that I haven't heard of a very strong relationship. Zero impact is beyond the scope of any analysis. So, while a lot of developed nations have women's rights, it is not clear from any empirical data that the variance is what caused these nations to be developed, and rather historically a lot of development happened just from increased use of male human resources. Most underdeveloped nations have massively underutilized male resources anyway.