Friday, July 14, 2006

The Lack of Foreign Policy

The following is a position paper of the Jacksonian Party.

President George Washington had a foreign policy for the United States that he counseled to the Union upon his stepping down from office: commonality between internal political factions so as to present an outward uniform Foreign Policy by leaving domestic disputes at the shoreline, friendship and trade with all Nations, and against involvement in foreign affairs and alliances. For the young Republic and even over two centuries later these words still ring true today as they did in 1797.

President James Monroe expanded upon that, calling upon European powers not to attempt to expand their Empires into the New World, but leave it free to its own affairs, thus giving the Monroe Doctrine as an outlook by the US upon the World. This outlook was drafted by John Quincy Adams during his time of Secretary of State and pushed forward hard when he was elected as President. President John Quincy Adams tried to get other governments in the Western Hemisphere to join together with the US so as to present a unified outlook upon European expansionism and to exclude such expansion from the New World. This outlook held so well that only in 1904 did President Theodore Roosevelt give its Corollary:

"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power."
Yes, this is where folks started looking to the US to be a Policeman! But do note the proviso given that things would really need to get out of hand before the US would look to intervene in the Western Hemisphere. This, however, did not last long and in a bit more than a decade President Woodrow Wilson looked towards a *new* Foreign Policy for the US that involved the World. Having won re-election on an isolationist and 'protect American interests and shipping' concept he soon found himself dragged into the World War that was going on. He also carried on the tradition of actually getting *involved* in the affairs of Western Hemisphere governments and sending troops to 'Banana Republics' to bring them into order. The "walk softly and carry a big stick" had been expanded to include "and swing that stick hard on anyone that doesn't agree with you." Be that as it may, President Wilson could see that his own policy and that of staying disentangled from foreign affairs was starting to lead to more global problems that could be ameliorated *if* the US could be involved. The idea of an International Counsel was put into the Treaty of Versailles and called forth the League of Nations.

The track record of the United States, being that of an isolationist nation that espouses trade and National Sovereignty, but no foreign entanglements could not be overcome, and the US did *not* join the League of Nations. Many accredit this for a direct cause to the Second World War, but, in truth, the League was toothless, moribund, catered to dictators and had hard problems getting any sort of agreement on *anything*. Just like the UN. The expansion of Communism, Fascism and Japanese Imperialism all went on unhindered by the League and there was nothing that any Nation was willing to do about it, especially the US. The structure of the League or UN in, and of, itself cannot lead to *any* form of good policing of worldwide problems that had NOT been previously and BETTER addressed by International Diplomacy between Nations. The later UN did NOT prevent the rise of the Warsaw Pact nor of NATO nor of protecting the 'rights of man' when put under the Communist heel of oppression. And the UN has proven inept, cowardly and abusive of peacekeeping missions, actively exploiting and neglecting those they are meant to care for.

President Harry S. Truman put forth the post-WWII Doctrine for the US of emergency aid to keep a failing Nation independent so it could reorganize itself. This also supported the concept of Containment for the USSR and Communism as a whole, so that it would not use resources of one Nation to destabilize another Nation. As Communism is based on a global and transnationalist ideal, this put the US into direct Foreign Policy conflict with the USSR and Communist regimes. As these philosophical battlelines were drawn and took hold, the world started into a period of armed stasis in which Nuclear Weaponry gave rise to Mutual Assured Destruction as a de facto outlook between these two sides. This was the reductio ad absurdism of nuclear devices: once used by either side, the other promised unlimited and wholesale use of their arsenal. By doing this Deterrence came into being as a way to keep expansionism in check and crystallized faultering Nations to one side or the other.

What this engendered, however, for US Domestic Policy, was a slow erosion of the political basis of the Truman Doctrine. To stop the expansion of Communism the US would have to get involved in smaller foreign wars so as to support faltering regimes, beyond mere relief aid. South Korea and South Viet Nam are two such wars that embodied this, but the shift in public opinion as the post-war generation came into the voting segment of the population was one of denial and horror at this. Fighting foreign wars to *stop* Communism actually put the US as an *ally* to totalitarian, dictatorial and even fascistic regimes. They did not see that the *other side* brutally 're-educated' populations, impoverished them and then used them as pawns for further expansionism. The loss of American lives brought home by the new media of television, gave graphic depiction of war as it had not been seen in the US since the Civil War. A re-alignment took place as those that had supported 19th Century liberalism were overthrown in one of the two major political parties in the US and replaced by transnationalists and those wishing to put forth a globalist agenda.

That tectonic shift in the late 1960's opened up a rift in US politics then and is still felt to this day. The Truman Doctrine, for all of its faults, actually *worked* but by means it was NOT expected to: economics. The USSR and China needed to support new communist regimes and had to do so from a limited and near pre-industrial base. The Soviet Union, in particular, found itself draining economic lifeblood into North Viet Nam and further into Laos and Cambodia after the US left. This left the USSR with a *victory* but one that was draining their economy white. Still, the Cold War continued and to get any benefit from expansion they actually had to *expand* and thus moved to export revolution to various Central and South American Nations and, once Viet Nam was won, almost immediately into Afghanistan. That fast shift of fronts to exploit a Western weak area proved to be the last thing the USSR needed and US support of asymmetrical warfare in which one individual with a high tech weapon could take out multi-million dollar aircraft proved to be too much for the USSR. But, as seen elsewhere, this stagnation and decay led to greater problems as those involved in radical Islam used fighting the USSR as a means to coalesce together. Further, the USSR started to suffer internal criminal activity at a large scale and even problems with old internal and external religious sects. Of this latter the AUM Shinrikyo has still proven to be the most unsettling as they used a potent brainwashing combination to gain entree to heavy military industrial capabilities.

The actual blows struck by Poland to disintegrate the Warsaw Pact and the entire Communist Bloc brought the edifice of the USSR down. Unfortunately, in that post-Cold War era, President GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush all have not put forth *any* coherent and understandable foreign policy framework with which the United States may actually apply fairly to the World. The supporters of Transnationalism are degrading the Nation State system and offering only Elite Utopian Tyranny in its place, or, even worse,a Dystopic Fantasy of a Caliphate.

Those that support the concept that Free Trade Everywhere encourages liberty have *still* to address the problem of China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Cuba, and a host of smaller failed Nations that are dotting the global landscape under oppression *with* Free Trade. In point of fact, Free Trade and 'low cost goods' have given the enemies of the US cheap and easy access to goods to HURT the US and liberty as a whole. Further, NAFTA has only served to export Mexican unemployment to the US even while the 15% of US companies in Mexico EMPLOY 40% of its workforce. This, must end as such agreements without harsh enforcement lead to the decay of industry, agriculture and sovereignty for the US.

Isolationism, however, has died a death of 3,000 in the Transnational Terrorist attacks of 9/11. Returning to *simple* isolationism will NOT work and the concept that leaving foreign Nations to their own problems since they will *not* be visited upon the US is now one of burying one's head in the sand and denying the world exists. And leaves your behind as an easy target for passers-by.

Globalism has failed TWICE via the League of Nations and the United Nations and *must* be given up as a conceptual framework for Foreign Policy. The UN, in particular, serves only as a support mechanism for tyranny and a way to export armed abuse to those who have fallen victim TO tyranny. The UN must be abolished as it no longer serves any good, save as banking for tyranny and support of same.

The United States should adhere to its Foreign Policy roots and re-instate them in new and harsher form than ever before. These roots, as previously talked about by the Jacksonian Party are simple to understand, but NOT simplistic in how they would be applied. In overview they are adhering to the concept that the ONLY law between Nations is that which is agreed to via DIPLOMACY between them and then enacted by their Governments. This includes a return to Jus ad bellum and the entire system of citing and waging Just War.

On Free Trade the simple policy of giving it to the Friends and Allies of the US so as to support them and encourage their growth is one that is honorable in both its outlook and conception. Those that wish mere *trade* with the US, but hold neither pro-/anti- views towards the Nation may pay a TARIFF upon their goods for ENTRY into the US market. If they will not honor the US with friendship, then they shall BUILD us with their MONEY. So long as they are not an enemy and if they go through Friend or Ally those goods gain no tariff as this SUPPORTS our Friends and Allies as middlemen with their 'cut'. And to those that are against the US: no trade of their goods either directly or via Our Friends and Allies to Our shores. We can do without those who hate us.

In support of our Friends and Allies, every means necessary to bring opposing, belligerent or just plain lax regimes into line should be used. Two modern examples of this approach are given for thought:

1) North Korea - China saved North Korea from destruction during the Korean War and should be held accountable for that activity. As they supply the bulk of ALL North Korean food and goods, China is a key to ending the threats from North Korea. To that end, China should be told that they OWN this problem on the 'You wanted them then, they are Yours now', concept. Further, China should be told that if they do *nothing* then the US will seek to encourage its Friends and Allies in the region to arm themselves with advanced attack and defense capabilities. These Nations would include: Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. If China further refuses to deal with North Korea's proliferation and threats problems, then China shall be de-listed for US trade and Taiwan added for full and FREE TRADE to exclude all of Red China's products and companies. China can pay a 10% entry to market tariff for selling in the US. North Korea is NOT the problem of the US and we do NOT appreciate being dragged into this abdication of responsibility amongst Communist regimes. You wanted that sorry place, now You clean it up.

2) Iran - Many say that the US has *no* levers to pull in Iran. They are incorrect. Iran has been suffering a number of internal uprisings and demonstrations and has had to crack down with its only reliable forces to keep the Nation together. As the US has strong Kurdish affiliation, we should encourage the Kurds to work with their brothers across the border to join together. This would require secession of the Kurdish lands in Iran and the US would *also* guarantee that any ethnic minorities in that area that JOINED with the Kurds would also get protection. As the US currently has 23,000 troops that will not be deployed from Germany to Iraq, they are now available for re-deployment. Iran should also be brought to trial in Iraq for their involvement with militias, sending non-uniformed military and establishing Intelligence operations on Iraqi soil. By supporting this, the US and New Iraqi Army can finally extinguish the Shia militias and seal the Iran/Iraq border, while shifting troops into the Kurdish provinces to support the Iranian Kurds and other minorities. This becomes an issue of protecting minority rights and human rights and National sovereignty and NOT one of a nuclear armed Iran. Now that Iran has moved Israel and Lebanon to the front pages, it is time to move Iran to them. Hurting TWO allies in the region: Israel and Iraq. Plus looking to destabilize the nascent democracy of Lebanon. Iran 'deserves' this sort of treatment and to have their bluff called and the stakes raised.

As a superpower the US can 'raise' stakes beyond anything that other Nations can do, even China. Still, by acting respectfully, responsibly and ADHERING TO PRINCIPLES the US can work its way through troubled times by doing things other Nations do not *expect* us to do. We must find ways to SUPPORT those Nations and Peoples who support US and give them Our Friendship and Support so that they may embrace freedom, liberty and democratic governance.

The US has NO Foreign Policy that anyone can articulate or even understand, and without that Our course amongst Nations is random and adrift and prone to reactions against hurts until the Ship of State is lost. An easy to understand Foreign Policy need not be simplistic, but it takes actual creativity and BELIEF in the ideals purported to make it work. Apparently this current and the past couple of previous administrations did not have either, and so we are without a course nor helmsman in the tempest of our times.

That must end.

Or We the People will be *at* an end.

No comments: