United States Digressions With Current

¶ … United States

Digressions with Current American Foreign Policy

Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent," (National Security Council, 2008) the words of President Bush's speech on foreign policy spoken in 2002 reflect the ultimately what our current foreign policy is aiming for. However, it is much debated on how successful those policies are actually proving themselves to be. In the actual implementation of the policies which are structured to convince the public of the administration's best intentions, the real generous and charitable essence of the policy is lost. Under this current presidential administration, we have seen the abolishment of a primary method of waiting until acted upon, the justification of our current military endeavors, and a series of false humanitarian efforts which claim to benefit those who cannot benefit themselves, but essentially only benefit the American economy.

Under the Bush administration, there are several key factors to the overall National Security policies and how those policies are implemented on a global stage. Modern conflicts prove to be much more complicated than wars and fights of the past generations. The United States is not at war with a single nation or country, but rather "The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents," (National Security Council, 2008). When faced with an enemy which can spread through different nations and governments, a country must therefore adjust older ways of dealing with a more well-known and recognizable enemy. According to the identity of our so-called "enemies," United States foreign policy has taken a very strong stance against dealing with any individual who has known to create terror against free and democratic nations, "The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them," (National Security Council, 2008). Modern American policy has turned towards a lack of negotiation with these suspicious individuals, therefore leaving us open to misunderstandings which might even further the conflict.

Another fundamental factor in the United States' policy regarding nation security is our reliance on our allies to help eradicate the world of terrorist groups. As outlined by the National Security Council, America now relies heavily on the strong support of our allies across the globe. Part of the actual plan to defeat terrorism is to strengthen ties with our current and potential allies in order to flush out any threatening terrorists and make the global stage inhospitable to their militant causes, "to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation," (National Security Council, 2008). This policy is also geared towards stopping terrorism in other countries who we have friendly relations with. However, despite the clear language in the policy itself, the United States has only gone after those terrorists groups who have deliberately threatened the safety of American soil, leaving many of our own allies to fend for themselves in time of need when they have to deal with their own forms of terrorism. If we are fighting a global war on terrorism, how do such atrocities in Darfur go unnoticed in terms of actual military action by the United States Government?

The most radical change in terms of foreign policy on the side of national security is the pre-emptive strike the United States has adopted recently into its acceptable military decorum. Since the time of the very creation of this nation, it has been a staunch policy to not act until acted upon by a threatening outside power or body of government. However, recently this has changed in order to fulfill the necessary requirements of the Bush administration's most recent campaign on the nation of Iraq. Although the militant Al Qaeda group, led by the notorious Osama bin Laden, had initially struck U.S. borders first, the nation of Iraq had planned no such attack. Basically, for the first time in American history since the Monroe administration, this nation struck first, "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country," (National Security Council, 2008). The situation with Iraq had been brewing since the Gulf War at the end of the twentieth century, but what was so prominent that the U.S. Government had to throw out two hundred years of successful and fair foreign policy for?

In furthering this dominant stance on the stage of world politics, the United States has adopted a very strong defense when it comes to the so-called weapons of mass destruction. Modern foreign policy is very aggressive in the avoidance of having U.S. enemies getting their hands on potential biological and nuclear threats. This was the main reason for the initial U.S. entrance into Iraq. After the initial end of the tension caused by the Cold War, the government of the United States has claimed to have significantly diminished its supply of nuclear arms in accordance to their agreement with Russia, (Whitehouse.org, 2008). Therefore, the country now takes a very aggressive role in policing certain countries in the nuclear capabilities. Many of the potential threatening nations to the United States have been criticized and even hindered from their nuclear efforts. North Korea, although it currently holds nuclear capabilities, has been ostracized and heavily criticized due to its nonconformist policies and styles of government, leaving relations between the country and the United States damaged. Furthermore, American efforts to stall the potential threat of Iran from obtaining and developing their own nuclear capabilities also serves as an example of the American efforts to take nuclear powers out of the hands of foreign nations. This understandable urgency in which American policy handles nuclear weapons in the hands of potential threats continues to show the United States as a country with much more of an offensive strategy, for "the best offense is a good defense," (National Security Council, 2008).

One of the largest justifications of such an aggressive political stance on world stage politics is the goal of achieving a peaceful world once potential threats are accordingly identified and eliminated. The Bush administration has dedicated itself to pursuing world peace via wars waged in the name of world peace. In accordance with current defense goals aimed at eradicating potential terrorist threats, the current administration is aiming at destroying all threats of public safety world wide, (Whitehouse.org, 2008). However, recent endeavors to produce peace in many turbulent areas of the globe have only offered up more chaos. The United States entered into a war with Iraq in which we were successful in defeating the tyrant Saddam Hussein. However, what resulted was the many years of chaos after the fall of Saddam and the country fell from political power. After his arrest, trail, and execution for the crimes committed against humanity, Saddam Hussein's position opened up a vacuum within the world of tense political and individual aspirations. The nation of Iraq exploded in a series of violent conflicts which involved many smaller organizations who had originally wanted the fall of Hussein in order to try for power within the nation as a whole. Since the beginning of this conflict, after a surprising first attack on the behalf of the American government, the world has seen many holes within the solidified argument of modern foreign policy and how the nation needed to act first in order to act upon a dignified risk of self preservation.

Individual rights and freedoms have always held an important place within the American ideology of government and life. Since the initial founding fathers expressed their interest in pursuing their own natural rights as humans within the context of the then British held Americas, protecting personal rights has always been a top priority in United States policy. However, throughout the generations, and continuing through into this century, foreign conflicts have continued to test the nation's devotion to individual rights. It is one thing to allow these rights within the scope of American borders, but foreign policy has not always reflected the devotion within itself. According to the recent press of this administration, "the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere," (National Security Council, 2008). The statements on the official website of the current presidential administration ensure the public that the life and liberty of all people world wide is at the core of all foreign policies emanating from within the White House itself. According to the administration, the best way to fully ensure every individual their own personal rights is to follow the current plan of eradicating enemies to democracy and personal liberties. Therefore, any war waged on a terrorist group then becomes a war to protect the personal liberties of those who can not do so themselves.

However, the United States itself has not even been able to stand up to the standards of liberated individual rights. Within the context of the most recent foreign soil wars, American soldiers in a military base have proven that the nation itself is unable to live up to its high standards of personal liberty. In a prisoner of war camp located at a military base in Guantanamo Bay, American soldiers violated international prison code standard during a humiliating act of submission where prisoners were forced to perform unlawful acts and behaviors at the behest of the soldiers on duty, (Sullivan, 2008). The very rights which were being so violently being protected in the eyes of the American public were actually being violated in our backyard. Despite the Bush administration's effort to promote the fight for individual freedoms, a military base under their jurisdiction was the scene of a huge international scandal which highlighted the United State's blatant disregard for individual human freedoms, (Sullivan, 2008). Suspected terrorists were being held at a foreign location and then being forced against their will by American prison staff to perform humiliating actions on film. After the break of the scandal hit newsstands, the current presidential administration only strengthened their devotion to pursuing international human rights, as well as the legal punishment of those who had embarrassed them with the true nature of United States' involvement in the revocation of those rights which many have fought so hard for.

One of the most debated sources of United States foreign policy has been the current conflict with the various conflicts with the once unified nation of Iraq. Since the beginning of one of the most controversial wars in the beginning of the twenty-first century, both American citizens and foreign nations have questions the true motives and desires behind the initial invasion of Iraq.

The conflict, which began first from an American pre-emptive strike on the nation of Iraq, has lasted much longer than previously expected and has caused the death of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi citizens. What was the justification of our entry into this war, which has proven to be much more complicated than earlier expected by the Bush administration? According to official reasons for American involvement, Saddam Hussein was initially targeted due to his connections with terrorist activities and general threats to the American democracy which had been so popular world wide.

Being the first war the United States has started without a previous reason to do so, it has been a constant source of conflict and scandal.

Another prominent example of the most recent adaptations to United States foreign policy is the modern American stance on free trade in a way to both justify and promote capitalism within the context of the international agenda. According to White House administrators, free trade leads to a much safer America due to a more stabilized world. When a country's economy is strong and stabilized, that nation becomes less of a potential threat for revolutions and political coups, (National Security Council, 2008). This administration has promised to help lift up other nation's economies via "economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth," (Whithouse.gov, 2008). This is also an example of the administration's attempt to publicly prove their concern for third world nations who play a large role in the economy of the United States. According to the administration, the United States in devoted to encouraging a more stable economy in order to help further efforts to end poverty in nations constantly troubled with the effects of an unstable economy. Currently, millions of American dollars are being spent on engaging in the economies of other nations. A 2005 article written by Steven Radelet posits about $16.3 billion dollars of American money, made up mostly of individual tax dollars, to rejuvenating international economies with ties to the United States economy. This contribution to foreign economies made up about twenty-five percent of all the money raised and donated to third world economies throughout the world, (Radelet, 2005). Where is this money going exactly? Based on estimated numbers of the money donated during the 2003-2003 seasons, that was about $51 per citizen (Radelet, 2005). Although this number does seem pretty significant coming from an American's citizen view, we are still far behind the $381 per month each citizen in Norway donates to foreign aid. Current administration press led us to believe that the United States is the top dog in terms of monetary donations and humanitarian aid, yet we fall significantly behind most prominent European powers, (Radelet, 2005). Americans do not spend nearly as much as the rest of the first world countries around the nation do on foreign aid for healthcare, democracy endeavors, and other efforts to further the improvement of life in foreign nations who would not be able to do so on their own.

Another major concern in the efforts of engaging in other economies via free trade is the idea of a modern imperialism taking hold within the context of the nations which are promised to be lifted out of an economic decline through the inclusion into United States' global economic efforts. In order to qualify for inception within the idea of free trade, the country must have positive American relations, and give up a certain amount of financial decisions to the United States in order to be fully included into the economical gold mine which is the opportunity to trade with the extremely capitalistic American market. This gives the United States much more say within the local governments of particular nations which have entered into business with the United States via the push towards free trade.

However, this large scale effort to bump up the economies of foreign nations has had several real life negative consequences. With more and more money invested within the economies of budding democratic nations, the United States has more and more influence within the governmental functions of that nation. Therefore, many have come to view the U.S. involvement within the idea of free trade as another more modern form of imperialism, which allows further U.S. control of nations who are seen as unable to fully control them. Although every nation involved in free trade has benefited in terms of potential new food sources and higher medical attention via more sophisticated healthcare (Shah, 2006), many countries have then been open for further American pillaging of necessary and therefore valuable resources and man power. With all of its promises of wealth a prominence, capitalism also offers the other side of the spectrum with increased poverty and less equality. This is then solidified through the embodiment of free trade, where the lower scale of the money is then outsourced to nations which are not to the same economic standards as the United States, (Shah, 2006). Basically the ideology of free trade has just opened up cheaper markets to already rich American businesses. Therefore, many nations have to undercut the rights and paychecks of workers in order to provide the United States the cheapest labor or the cheapest product so that America does not venture forth to find a cheaper market. Then, the initial charitable notions of free trade the United States would have had in the original inception of the methodology behind the idea of free trade.