How would YOU Conduct US Foreign Policy?

[mactavish]

As the sole remaining superpower in the world, the US has a great and far-reaching impact on the rest of the planet through how it conducts its foreign policy.

So if you were the person in charge of the foreign policy of the United States of America, which of these options would you go with?

Please explain your answer, particularly if you have an idea not listed here.

mactavish out.

[Dan Gurden]

Gotta be an equal partner...

Personally I dont care if your the last remaining world superpower. Isolationism doesn't work... Look where that got anyone that tried it... Especially in the shrinking media world. Hell, look at China in the last 10 years... Trying to isolate its people from the outside world AFTER the Pandoras Box was opened.

Sure you can swagger about and bully the rest into submission. But thats simply arrogant, will make more enemies than friends, and even then those people that claim to be on your side are either using you to get their agenda done, or waiting for you to trip and fall... Besides... Look at the after effects of being a superpower, treating the world as if it owes you, and then loosing it. That'll be the Empire compared to the UK today. Sure we are a player, but no where near the level it once was (and I feel from our history that this is good, we simply did not deserve the Empire). Do you want to loose what you have?

Way too powerful to be a follower, even I can see that.

But an equal partner. Thats a different story, rely on co-oporation, use your power and might to help others, and level the playing field. Its just one planet, and until we get off it, theres no alternative, we all have to share this playground. And its not as big as it first looks.
This does of course mean that everyone has to face up to their failings, forgive the past and work co-operatively towards the future.

Problem is, us humans being the dumb animals we are, thats just not going to happen.

Is there a better way? Possibly, but from the fact that I am neither a Nobel Prize winner nor significant world leader, I couldn't even begin to see a better way.

[Ramage]

The United States is part of the world. It cannot "got it alone", on a raw materials level if nothing else. As such, the US needs to engage with other nations on a frequent basis.

While it is possible for the US to be in the primus inter pares level, it should not assume that it is the leader of the world, free or otherwise. The best role would be to act as one of many nations, a wider coalition not merely in war/defence, but in all important matters -- food, medicine, disaster relief/control, pollution, etc. A moral nation, like a moral individual, will lead by example rather than by fiat.

So, yes, ultimately I would hope that the United States would work as an equal partner with other nations.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

I chose none of the above. I don't particularly think that U.S. hegemony would be in its best interests or that isolationism would work.

I believe that the U.S. should first and foremost strive to maintain its current status. It should endeavour to protect its citizens and its interests from harm. Only then should it protect the citizens of its allies. Its allies should be chosen based on what they could provide to the U.S. and not on some sense of morality. When allies become useless or cause problems they should be dropped.

Fact is that the U.S. is the sole great power of the industrialized world. It is the only one with a reach which extends across the globe (apart maybe from the U.K.). While China and India may become superpowers someday, they haven't yet so we should strive to improve relations with them.

Cooperation can only occur when partners each have something of value to contribute. Since Europe has no great military capability, coop with them is simply unrealistic. Security is defended by those with the bigger army.

The U.S. should keep a small group of allies who are capable to assist her when she needs help dealing with "rogue" states. Matters of international law and human rights should be dealt by the world community, but they should NEVER become binding on sovereign states. So it should strive to obey international deals, but they shouldn't be a straight-jacket.

[Cybrludite]

Our foriegn policy should always act in in the interests of the United States, just the same as the foriegn policy of every other nation in the world does. If that means working with others, that's all well and good. If it means telling the lot of you to sod off, then the lot of you can sod off. I don't see why we should subordinate our national interests to those of the rest of the world. Especially when no one else is willing to do so.

[Dave Biggins]

Put me down for another "none of the above".

The United States is not an island (metaphorically speaking...and, well, literally speaking). We have to cooperate with others but our dance partners should be chosen with wisdom.

Keeping good relations with the EU, to me, is paramount. Despite current disagreements between us, we have worked together quite well and are continuing to work well. THe thing that comes most readily to mind is Eastern Europe. Although this is a gross oversimplification, the EU generally takes care of the political end while the US takes care of the military end. the Eastern European nation, of course, plays the major part in this operation. Poland, Hungary, and the Chech & Slovak Republic have overall been a success stories. The Balkans...well...neither the EU nor the US has given up on them and we split the tab on the asprin purchases. The critical link in EU/US dialog, to me, is the UK. The UK understands the other European powers better than the US and the UK also understands the US better than the other European nations. *shrug* When all is said and done, the overall US culture (or uberculture, if you will) is an off shoot of British culture.

Another critical nation to keep good relations with is Canada. The US can not afford to take the Canadians for granted. They're one of the closest to our line of thinking and that's probably what causes the most dust-ups. The Canadians can be stubborn and are very unlikely to back off from a fight. Sound familiar, my fellow Americans?

What ever the third member critical nation to keep the fences mended with is Australia. When they talk of matters in Asia (especially the South East region), it's time for us to shut the Hell up and listen.

[dimeboy99]

How can anybody say that the USA should be equal partners and then, in the same breath, say that it should use its power, ability, economics, etc to level the playing field. How is that equal? Socialist, yes. Equal, no.

Equal would be that the USA should kick in the same amount of resouces, power, military, peace keepers, etc as everybody else. That is all and good, but I think you would be hard pressed to find 1st world nations that were willing to pick up the slack if the US was merely equal. I'd love to see them do it, though.

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by dimeboy99
How can anybody say that the USA should be equal partners and then, in the same breath, say that it should use its power, ability, economics, etc to level the playing field. How is that equal? Socialist, yes. Equal, no.

My mistake...

I said 'your' while talking about equal patrners... Thing about EQUAL PARTNERS is that what 1 does, all do...

Thus the poor countries poor all the money they dont have into leveling the playing field, just as the US drops global emissions to equal rates (pro-rata) thus ensuring that this planet has a long-term future as a habitable location...

Neither are going to happen so what are you bitching about!

I was asked an opinion, and an explanation. NOT to be attacked by the guy that pours the same attack on any post that might suggest the US is not the worlds most perfect place...

SO whats YOUR opinoin Dimeboy!

[ComaBoy]

As far as I can tell, the US is the first world, (for good or ill), as I don't think any other nation matches its economic or military power. The US in my opinion needs to balance its economic and security needs with the same factors of nations in other regions of the world.

Blind support of country X at the expense of countries Y and Z, all of which engage in, for example, morally questionable behavior, is not good policy. Making all three countries happy probably isn't possible however more coherent regional policies probably is. Prentending that 21st century foreign policy can be reduced to a WWII 'us vs. them' approach is right out.

[Capt.Hunter]

I accept that nations will occasionally do what is in their best interest. However, not even attempting to negotiate to see if there's a middle way because one nation could kick the snot out of the other (militarily or economically) is a fertile breeding ground for the sort of hatred and anger the US is having to face at present. A nation as powerful as the US has a lot of trouble realizing just how fragile poorer nations might be, and how much damage its actions might cause. When the US flooded Malaysia and Thailand with a load of local currency it had bought and hoarded, the intent was to devalue the currency so that US companies could buy up local concerns at bargain prices (questionable in itself, but I'll let that pass). I sure the people involved had no idea that the local economies were so fragile that the governments nearly collapsed and over a million locals got put below the poverty line (which, in Thailand, means you're dead - not out on the streets, but dead). Powerful nations (not just the US) need to consider the consequences of their actions more, much as an explorer of the Amazon must watch his step to avoid crushing some endangered species.

[dimeboy99]

Originally posted by Dan Gurden
Neither are going to happen so what are you bitching about!

I don't see that I was bitching. I merely disagreed with your version of what equal partners means. I look at it from the business aspect, and perhaps that isn't the way you approached it. Goodness gracious, Dan, not everybody is going to agree with you. But that is no reason to blow up.

I was asked an opinion, and an explanation. NOT to be attacked by the guy that pours the same attack on any post that might suggest the US is not the worlds most perfect place...

SO whats YOUR opinoin Dimeboy!

Again, no need to go overboard here, Dan. You'd have to show me where my reply to you was an attack. You can't, so I'll accept that you're grumpy and move on from there. If anybody has gone personal in this thread, it's you.

I never once waived the American flag in this thread, nor did I attack you personally. Nor did I name you specificially. You'd have to show me where what I posted was an attack.

Go ahead, Dan. Look it over. Explain it to me. Show me where I went on the offensive. Or back off and grow up. Honestly, sometimes you act so American.

I put my opinion down in the "Europe" thread, if you are so inclinded to actually go read it before painting me with a broad yet insulting brush. If it is too much trouble, let me know and I'll provide a link.

[Fortunae]

You know... I've thought about this before and since my "realistic" answer to this isn't very interesting I think I'd like to go with what I'd *really* like.

I'd like for us to close all of our overseas bases and chuckle at the dual impact of losing our troops as customers and having to pick up the slack for their suddenly increased defensive needs economically.

I'd like for us to be open with the rest of the world about our national refusal to adhere to the metric system.

I'd encourage the rest of the world to drive on the correct side, and I'd even use some of the money I'm about to save in a point below to help them make the change with the painting and the sign replacement. I say correct because if you go by the automobile majority (ie where the cars are and driven) it seems to me that the Right side is the Correct side (all apologies to Japan and the UK and the other left side driver nations). I think if we could all at least agree to driving on the same side of the road it would be a step in the right direction for mutual cooperation.

I think we should reduce trade with Europe and Nationalize all European owned businesses in our country; and instead buy into the products of Africa so that they have more hard currency so that they can afford to buy the equipment (from us) and modernize their manufacturing facilities to make thier industry more globally friendly.

I would, for the sake of reducing harmful gas engine emissions, ccompletely ban the import of any motorvehicles that run on petrochemicals -- the Europeans are so insistant on the move to electric cars (and I *like* electric cars) they should put up or shut up and switch over to electric cars so that if want a new Porsche in American, you'll have to electric.

I would reduce our trade interactions with Asia and Nationalize all their holdings in our country, and focus on our neighbors to the south for the same reasons I would dump Europe for African developments. I would take particular glee nationalizing anything owned by a Japanese company since they won't let Americans own land or property in thier country, it's all about the parity.

I would, of course, understand when they did the same thing to our holdings (The Asians and Europeans) in their countries; and being reasonable, I wouldn't even rattle a saber about it.

Of course, the real swinging policy changes I would make would be to cut off *all* yes *all* foreign aid. Yes, even to the regions I want to do business with. I'd want them to get the money the old fashioned way, sell us something we want. We'd still honor our commitmants to NATO and other groups we have defense treaties with, but I'd be sure to try to spark some country to declare war on us and then insist that NATO provide all the troops and resources to save us... maybe against Cuba or something. That way when the defeated are all pissy about what happened, they can focus their rage on the bad countries that attacked them instead of us.

Back to the foreign aid -- well gee, that's alot of money we have now... BILLIONS! Why, I'd increase our defense spending because all of these changes are piss people off and we need to defend ourselves -- and then I'd through the rest into free education, drug rehibilitation, social awareness. I'd fund art programs and public works programs that helped with unemployment. And I'd use that money to cure America's ills instead of the rest of the worlds and if they had a disaster I'd says I was really sorry that happened to them, it's a shame, tell me how it worked out.

And so, I'd be making a better class of Americans, in our shifting of relations and introspection we could evolve our sensibilities, and we could see how the rest of the 1st world and 2nd world really *could* get on without us and so we would be less arrogant and we'd make great friends with our African and South American brothers and sisters. And we could respond to the economic gauntlet of the Unified Europe trade block with our own based on our relations with our new friends.

And then one day, I'd think about all the loans we forgave and billions and billions of dollars owed to us in capital, lives and intrest that we forgave and I would make a bold move and *Forgive" American of it's National Debt. That's right, we'd be free and clear -- oh sure, it would cause a massive economic collapse but that would be alright because when we all rebuilt from that we'd all be more focused and have a better understanding of what it would take to work together as one big happy family.

Then I'd contact the secret masters from Zephran and the invasion would be complete.

Now, all that aside -- American gives more foreign aid than any other country, we send our young men and women to distant lands to look after American's interests and TO HELP. I was a soldier, I did it for college money. I was a soldier, I did it for my country. I was a solider, I did it to secure the liberty of the Europeans who for the most part I liked. If you must cling to a stereotype about my people, the one that is *most* true about us and *our* government is that we outgoing and friendly, we are happy to chip and help our fellow man -- but we will do it on our terms because it's our time and our money. For some of our closet friends we'll wave that, but if we are footing the bills we are going to in charge -- and if you don't like that, decline our help or step up and contribute equally and they you can be our equal partners. Americans *like* to help people, we like to think of ourselves as the "good guys". We take elaborate steps in our foreign policy to try to cover those angles and keep the white hats, even when we wage war. If you *don't* see that about us, then you really don't understand us -- and that's okay, we don't understand why Asia and Europe is so arrogant to us, from friendly patronization to blatent dismissal we face all of that on the international stage and we smile with teeth showing and we try to do what we think it best for us in helping the rest of the world.

And *that* said -- you question us, just like you should question your friends when you think they are doing wrong. But, there comes a time when questioning should be put aside and friendship should be followed through with or ended. I have always thought that Canada and the UK were our friends, particularly after September 11th -- but if we disagree on how to pursue this war, then maybe we should thank you for your aid and time and let you chart your own course while we chart our own. Not the best thing for humanity I'm sure, but I don't look forward to the generational clash between "Older Wiser Europe" vs "Young Overeager America" because when push comes to shove... well, let's avoid and pushing or shoving, that's how people get hurt.

Peace

[dimeboy99]

Originally posted by Fortunae
Then I'd contact the secret masters from Zephran and the invasion would be complete.

LOL.

[Dr. Armageddon]

Huzzah Fortunae!!! It's time that the rest of the world got to play by the same rules that they impose on us...I would love to see the looks on the European and Far eastern faces when we tell them about the tariffs and taxes we'll be imposing on their goods.....and how all that foreign aid is going to be drying up....

[Lord Kjeran]

Chello!

Imperial America all the way! Teddy Roosevelt was THE Man!

Seriously, the late Israeli PM (the assassinated one--Rabin?) is quoted as saying: "America is a conundrum to the rest of the world. After WW2 She could have conquered the world....but didn't."