Foreign Policy
Introduction
So, what should the focus and purpose of US policy be? Foreign policy is a complicated issue that involves both military and economic interests. There are numerous real-world subtleties i will ignore here.
Spoiler: there should be no militaristic imperialism and/or interventionism. There should be no bowing down to foreign entities (like the UN).
Responsibilities of a "World Power"
What responsibilities do the so-called world powers (you could use G8 or other classifications) have to the rest of the world?
My answer is that world powers have no stated or implied duty to intervene in the affairs of other nations. A country has a responsibility (usually not fulfilled) to its citizens - and no one else. If citizens, private enterprise, etc. feel the need to donate to things like disasters in other nations, that is one thing. However, it is a completely different animal using taxpayer funds for non-domestic purposes.
For the record, i believe that federal funds should never be used for international purposes. This includes disaster aid, any foreign aid, and proxy conflicts. It is not responsible, especially for a debt loaded country, to spend taxpayer money on foreign concerns.
The US should not be the world police or funders. This would also extend to a doctrine of military non-interventionism.
Military Role on a Global Scale
So, what should the global role of a country's military be?
For me, the answer is a straightforward answer, but not an answer many will like - nothing. Yes, i am a fan of military isolationism. The only military justification i see is a credible, well defined and eminent threat to location on US soil. The "war" on terror is not justifiable or winnable and does not qualify.
i view the US military operations around the world as an archaic relic from post-World War II and the Cold War era. This was more about trying to stop the spread of Communism. However, "democracy" at the barrel of a gun is not any better.
It is not the duty of the US to foster/support "democracies" through military force. i would prefer most, if not all, US military bases around the world to be closed. It is fiscally irresponsible for the US to keep them in operation - ego and colonialism are not valid justifications.
i view the military as something that is necessary for a country. However, as it is basically a non-productive use of resources, it should be limited in scope and size. i will begrudgingly admit that some good things came as a result of military spending (like the internet).
However, if a war situation happens... i would not discount the usage of any method (even if that method is generally considered immoral or illegal). If a country needs to torture prisoners of war, assassinate a foreign leader it is at war with or kill civilians, i would not take that off the table. In a worst-case scenario, i see nothing wrong with using your nuclear arsenal.
UN, NATO and Other Worthless Entities
The US should never surrender any of its sovereignty to foreign associations. They should not be fighting the world's wars. There should be no treaties to protect foreign "allies". Military non-interventionism, not military shield.
The League of Nations failed - it's successor should have already failed (for the same exact reasons). There should not be a one world government. The UN does not get to dictate US actions (and should stay out of American affairs). The UN should not be allowed to operate in the US.
The US should leave the United Nations. They should also exit NATO. There is no benefit to the US outside imperialistic machinations for honoring such a treaty. Let Europe deal with its own crap.
World Trade:
It is far better to be an economic superpower than a military one.
Really, it should not be the interactions between countries, but the economic interactions by private parties (like corporations, etc) that make up free trade. Unfortunately, it may be necessary for the federal government to sign large dollar treaties and trade agreements. To me, it is the economic success and opportunities that define success for a country.
Trade partners are a good thing to have, but it kind of crosses the line when a trade partner gets involved in a military conflict. i guess you could say it was ok (barely) if such actions provide a greater benefit to the people/companies than the cost of the actions (or marginal government revenues from interactions therein). Israel is probably the trickiest "ally" for the US (assuming they are an actual ally).
That being said, countries should strive to minimize interference with free market forces. Protectionist tactics like tariffs and even subsidies are counterproductive (and might result in retaliation/escalation from the other side). i acknowledge that sometimes it will be necessary for a country's people to assert its rights via the government. It may also be the only way to help open markets in certain circumstances.
Simply Summing it Up:
Free trade is good, war is bad. Let other countries deal with their own problems. Not America first, America only.
No comments:
Post a Comment