What should be the basis of foreign policy?

Post Reply New Topic

True We've probably sold them more bullet-proof Mercedes limousines than Leopard tanks.

I'm a non-interventionist. I think we should try to have free trade, but not get involved in foreign problems.

Because we are supporters of Israel they hate us for that very reason any nation that supports Israel Al-Qaeda hates period. If China started to support Israel then Al-Qaeda would never be brave enough to attack China because China would just whipe them all out like ants.

Because we are supporters of Israel they hate us for that very reason any nation that supports Israel Al-Qaeda hates period. If China started to support Israel then Al-Qaeda would never be brave enough to attack China because China would just whipe them all out like ants.

The PLAN has been following a three-step strategy in its modernisation process. In the first step, it aimed to develop a relatively modernised naval force that can operate within the first island chain, a series of islands that stretch from Japan to the north, to Taiwan, and Philippines to the south. In the second step, the PLAN aims to develop a regional naval force that can operate beyond the first island chain to reach the second island chain, which includes Guam, Indonesia, and Australia. In the third-stage, the PLAN will develop a global naval force by the mid twenty-first century.

While these actions are imposing an idea, do you think that there is a rational justification for this? I mean, the thing that comes to mind is that international interdependence is a strong force towards peace and stability, simply because war would lead to the loss of these gains. A trade-orientation in the economy seems like it would be good from that standpoint.

I'm just curious as to your thoughts though. Also, in your doubts about current international economic policy, do you think that the problem is just the particular policies of the IMF and WTO, or do you think it is a free trade-oriented ideology?

If China made the effort, the international community would explode with condemnation, and very likely something would be done to make China back down, whether it was trade sanctions or something else.

The subject-line says everything. To add clarification, there are many debates in the purposes and policies to be undertaken in foreign policy.

Realists believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the strict national interest of a nation, and that the central concerns are things like the balance of power, such that stability between the power-levels of nations is arrived at. The point of a realist foreign policy is to conserve strength, avoid attack, and avoid dominance by a foreign power.

Neoconservatives believe that foreign policy should be dictated by the need to spread democratic values both as a moral concern and as a way to stabilize the world. To this end, they believe in national efforts to invade nations to spread democracy/human rights and to spread democracy/human rights by other needs as necessary, and are willing to accept unilateral efforts to this moral end.

Internationalist Idealists believe that foreign policy should be driven by international bodies/international agreements motivated by laws, notions of justice/fairness, and who seek to maintain order using multilateral diplomacy, world opinion, and economic policy.

Isolationists believe that foreign policies should be avoided. This may be driven by national interest, or it may be driven by moral concerns. Instead, a nation should simply avoid the entire entangling mess and be neutral, and set trade policies by internal factors, not external ones.

Obvious the issue is more complicated than what I've put forward, and I didn't even bother to break things down into normative and positive views on the matter. However, I did want to solicit feedback. What are forum poster thoughts?

Germany also openly supports Israel, as do most other European countries. And yet, the Muslim world doesn't seem to hate us. We've managed to maintain friendly foreign relationships with most Muslim countries. Even with Iran, although the economic sanctions against them are putting some strain on the diplomatic ties.

There must be more reasons for the resentment that many Islamic countries seem to harbor against the USA. It could be the fact that the U.S. military is all over the globe. I mean, American soldiers are currently deployed in approx. 2/3 of all countries on this planet. Or perhaps it's the unjustified invasions of countries such as Grenada, Panama or Iraq, as well as the talk of American conservatives about invading even more countries.

Or the fact that the USA is directly responsible for the overthrow of at least 6 democratically elected governments (among them Iran in 1953, ironically), as well as several non-elected governments that were replaced by brutal dictators. Of course the USA has also freed countries in the past, but in many cases, the meddling of the U.S. government in the affairs of other nations has changed things for the worse. Some countries are understandably resentful and worried that they will be the next target of U.S. military or CIA intervention, and extremist groups in those countries channel this resentment into open aggression and terrorist attacks.

This is the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.

China has no ability to project power beyond its borders.
Its not a great naval power. It has a large but still primitive army-none of which is based outside of china itsself. It doesnt have foriegn bases all over the planet like the USA does.
Its not in a position to take action againts any Muslim country( with the exception of oppressing the muslim ethnic minority within china itsself in the remote Sinjuan province).

How could China lay a finger on anyone connected with Al Queda?
I cant imagine how China could even try to do that.

On top of that if China tried to make war on Al Queda it would have to attack the nerve center of al queda which happens to be located in China's biggest and most strategically important ally Pakistan. Attacking that ally would be suicidal for China's interests.

.

I doubt that. The US has a lot of trust/respect/integration in the international community. If China made the effort, the international community would explode with condemnation, and very likely something would be done to make China back down, whether it was trade sanctions or something else. China simply has more to lose than the US by taking a risky action. Also, the Chinese don't have as much military power or ability to project that military power, while the US has an established history of doing that from the Cold War.

This is very true Germany is on good terms with them what I mean is they hate North America the most. For what ever reason it must have to do with their belief that many americans are zionists. Even though their are americans that do not ever support Israel at all.

We are resented because we have a huge military presence in the Persian Gulf in the Muslim heartland following the first Iraq war.

Thats the whole reason why Ben Ladin attacked us on 9-11.

Which in turn- is why we now have an even larger military presence in the middle east then we had before he attacked us! Instead of just Kuwait, we now occupy Iraq and Afganistan as well!

Another reason we the US put brutal dictators in charge in middle eastern country causing the people to hate us and I do not blame them for hating the US.