This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
What do you see as the top foreign policy priority for the U.S. in 2011 and why? What do you see as the potential hurdles for addressing this issue? What advice do you have for Obama and Congress in dealing with this foreign policy issue?
Labels: foreign policy
posted by maby-keirstead @ 8:07 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
28 Comments:
Once upon a time, Kathy Long Term Carr was sitting in Ms. Aby's 4th hour prep time that I TA for and was trying to decide what to blog about. SPOILER ALERT: Before she decided to write about China, I advised her to blow some silly issue way out of proportion and have some fun with this post. Not that me blowing some silly issue way out of proportion is anything out of the ordinary, but I'm just giving you all a heads up that I'm taking some of my own advice this week. And getting the blog done on Tuesday. And I am racing to get this done before Katie Carr, who put in a substantial amount of work on her post in fourth hour (Tuesday).
America, we may not all agree on politics, but the thing that makes me proud to be an Amurrican is that we have always been able to come together during times of war and pull through and win. Except 'Nam. Damn hippies.
These are tough times, marred by sluggish economic growth, a war in Afghanistan, and tense relations with basically every country in the world (maybe not tough diplomatic relationships, but if you were a European citizen would you have any respect for a land full of buffoons who don't know the difference between Australia and Austria?). However, not even the global dominance of China can compare to the biggest, baddest enemy that has yet to challenge America: an Estonian Cyber Army (1).
That's right, Amurica, those Commies that used to be part of Russia, the Estonian Republic (does anyone notice the pattern? Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Estonia..), which was a main belligerent in the world's first "cyber war" in 2007, has now formed what they are calling a Cyber Defense League to get ready for a second cyber war (1).
Having a bunch of computer programs and super-nerdy software engineers isn't enough for these Estonians, as it's 'defense' league is being called a special military unit, and they are also flooding the cyberspace with propaganda to recruit even more programmers to join this unit through a "Nerd Draft" (1). Who is being recruited? The country's IT work force, who will basically be ripped away from their regular jobs and empressed into serving this Estonian cyber army. And we thought President Obummer was a Socialist, but this is just unbelievable!
Additionally, the little Communist Country that Could (Alliteration win) is also overtly conspiring to bring down the international financial system. Estonia just recently decided to throw all of its national pride in its culture and heritage down the drain in abandoning its former currency in favor of the Euro (2), and, interestingly enough, the magic markets have determined that Estonia is just such a worthless stretch of land that the value of the Euro plummeted by 6.5% compared to the dollar today (3). After Estonia finishes killing off the European Union and finishes building up its nuclear program that may or may not actually exist, they will be respected and feared on the international stage (4) and will be able to wage a full-scale cyber war on the United States before launching a nuclear strike. This cyber army must be stopped NOW. Since Obummer and the Dumbocrats will continue their reign as passivist hippies and not do anything to stop it, America's days are numbered. God save us all.
(1) http://techland.time.com/2011/01/04/estonia-considers-a-nerd-draft-to-staff-cyber-army/
(2) Whatever article Emma Becker used in her econ current event which suggested that Estonia's culture was threatened by a switch to the Euro
(3) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e1b1ca0-1730-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1A6cJnFi8
(4) Ms. Aby's lecture
First off...I would like to give kudos to Eric for finishing his post before me. I also really enjoyed his spoiler alert so if you don’t want to read my whole post read Eric’s...he tends to blow minute issues out of proportion and he does a really great job of it.
On to my actual post...read on...
My pick for the top foreign policy priority for the US in 2011...China. So why did I pick China? I’m sure a lot of you, before reading Eric’s post, thought that I would post a rant on the conflict in the middle east and how much I hate war and how we need to become less dependent on Middle East oil. Well, the reason I’m not writing about that topic is because I just told you all I felt about it. I needed a topic that I could articulate on, something that wasn’t so clear. A challenge for the final original post of Ms. Aby’s apusgopo class for the 2010-2011 school year. I settled on China because I feel as a country we have a significant interest in China, economically and militarily.
Problem #1- Unobtanium: China currently produces 97% of the world’s earth metals (1). On top of that China has announced that it in the next couple of years it will be substantially reducing the amount of rare earth metals it produces and exports (1). The United States is totally dependent on China is this sphere and rare earth metals are needed in producing items such as solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, wind turbine magnets, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and many other objects that are necessary in “green energy” production (1). Rare earth metals are also used in cancer treatments. A great irony in this whole discussion is that the US has stopped mining rare earth metals because they posed a significant environmental threat. So basically if the United States wants to move forward with clean energy production they are going to have to buddy up to China.
Problem #2- Made In China: In July of this year, China overtook Japan as the world’s second largest economy (3). On top of that China is now the dominant trading partner in Asia (3). The country is also currently experiencing exponential growth in trade with Africa and Europe. In fact, in September of this year China overtook the United States as Europe’s largest trading partner, $306 billion for Europe and $243 billion with the US (4). China is also investing in European currency moving part of their $2.7 trillion foreign-currency reserves out of dollars and into euros (4). While the US may hold more diversified interests in countries like Africa and Europe, China is specializing in cheap, cheaper, and cheapest. A market that should be very profitable during times like these. Even Americans are still buying cheap, made in China goods, and there is no end in sight for when China will end cheap, factory labor (2). It appears as if China is no longer completely dependent on the United States for economic growth, and if the United States could never boss the Chinese around even when they were dependent on us, I’m pretty sure there is no hope for the rest of the world. China is a bully, and now there really is no reason why they can’t be.
Problem #3- They have WEAPONS! (Actually dangerous ones): On December 22nd the United States ratified a new START treaty with Russia (7). While the pact will not have a significant impact on disarmament, it will reduce long-range nuclear warheads by up to 30% on each side and trims the number of deployed nuclear-capable submarines, long-range missiles and heavy bombers to 700, with an additional 100 in reserve (7). So why should we be concerned with China? Well, first off, China has recently been building up its ballistic missiles, and currently has one of the most progressive and ambitious missile-modernization programs (5). China claimed that this buildup was necessary due to ongoing tensions with Taiwan, yet while relations between the two countries have warmed China’s missile program continues to grow (5). Unlike the United States and Russia, China did not sign the 1987 INF treaty which stops both the US and Russia from deploying intermediate range land-based ballistic and cruise missiles. By building up its missiles China is now more capable of making countries, especially ones close to China, do what the Chinese want them to. In fact, both India and Taiwan are increasing there missiles in case of problems with the Chinese (5). Thus a sort of arms race has begun to occur. But these are not the only problems for the United States having to do with China’s missiles, the build-up may be the INF’s demise with Russia now threatening to pull out if the Chinese do not sign (5).
Well then Kathy, what do you think we should do?: In summary “Washington needs to reassure China that it is still prepared to pursue a "positive, cooperative and comprehensive" relationship with Beijing and that bolstering the U.S. strategic position in Asia need not be at China's expense” (6) My advice for Congress, President Obama and his staff would be to (1) push China to sign the INF treaty through talks, (2) try to get the UN to put trade sanctions on China because going individually after Chinese trade is not going to work anymore, (3) improve US output of cheap goods, (4) put more funding into development of clean energy methods, and (5) BECOME LESS DEPENDENT ON CHINA.
(1)http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5742-us-hostage-to-red-china-for-rare-earth-minerals
(2)http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/03/companies-look-to-china-s-heartland.html
(3)http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/09/the-china-dream.html
(4)http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/18/europe-becomes-china-s-biggest-trade-partner.html
(5)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123102687.html
(6)http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/10/garrett.china/index.html?iref=allsearch
(7)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122104371.html
Foreign policy is a tricky business. It is, perhaps, one of the most important things our government is involved in, especially in the modern world. As it typical with things so important, politicians and pundits love to argue about what the best solution to any given foreign policy issue is. This division, I think, is going to lead to what will be the biggest foreign policy issue of 2011: the persisting conflict between North Korea and South Korea. North Korea sees recent naval exercises between the US and South Korea off the Korean peninsula as an affront and thinks the US is “pushing the Korean peninsula to the brink of war” (1). Not to mention that merely a few months ago the Koreas were actually exchanging fire over border disputes (2). This creates a problem for the US because the government has promised nuclear protection to them on several occasions, not to mention several US military bases exist in South Korea. Only exacerbating the problem is that China, one of North Korea’s few allies, is losing faith in them and is attempting to distance themselves from North Korea, according to leaked information (3). So, therefore, I would say the most important foreign policy in 2011 will be trying to find a compromise, as well as a path to future unification, for the Koreas with 6 party talks, even though the US, among other countries, still are reluctant to do so (4).
That said, the potential hurdles here are numerous and, frankly, terrifying. As is common knowledge, North Korea has a nuclear weapons program that has been the main obstacle towards peaceful negotiations, even as recently as TODAY (5). It’s obvious why the US is unwilling to talk until the weapons are gotten rid of: as is evident by the conflict in November, the situation over there is tense. Should a problem arise in the peace talks, it’s not unreasonable to say that North Korea could be heavily tempted to use one or several of their nuclear weapons, at a great cost. Another inherent problem is that North Korea really just doesn’t like us (1). While they may be willing to go into negotiations with us, they’ve made it no secret that they don’t like us in any capacity; one needs only to read an article from a North Korean newspaper to glean that. This inherent dislike could lead to difficulties in finding a compromise they would accept, with them understanding we came up with that compromise.
My advice to the government is to be cautious. Under more ordinary circumstances, maybe less care would be appropriate, but this is certainly an extraordinary circumstance. Substantially antagonizing a country that we know for a fact has nuclear weapons is both reckless and incredibly idiotic. Unfortunately, this gives us a lot less ground to stand on in terms of leverage against them. Frequently, restrained negotiations are a lot less effective than unrestrained ones. Perhaps it would be best to try to push for them to get rid of their nuclear weapons (as we are seeming to do (5)) before negotiations to avoid such a problem (this still runs the problem of the fact that nothing is getting resolved at the moment but that may be better in the long run).
1. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/North-Korea-US-South-Korean-Exercises-Push-Peninsula-to-Brink-of-War-110789879.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_clash
3. http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978743339
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/31/AR2010083101909.html
5. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-06/u-s-south-korea-reject-north-korea-s-overture-to-hold-talks-as-insincere.html
While I think that the very top foreign policy priority for the U.S. in 2011 involves conflicts in the Middle East, North Korea has become increasingly belligerent recently, and it is one the top foreign policy issues that our nation will deal with this year.
After North Korea's attack on the South Korean border on November 23, relations between the two countries have basically completely deteriorated. North Korea has threatened to launch a "sacred" nuclear war if another country attacks it[1]. This could definitely be a problem because South Korea is also being very aggressive and there is a chance they could invade the country [2]. North Korea is expected to continue working on its nuclear weapons program in 2011 and may be testing them too, according to a South Korean think tank [1]. It is speculated that North Korea has in its possession enough weaponized plutonium for at least six atomic bombs, so they do pose a real threat, and with issues heating up between the two Koreas, the U.S. will definitely be paying a lot of attention to that peninsula this year.
One potential hurdle to addressing this issue is the cooperation of North Korea in the six-party talks between the Koreas, the US, China, Russia, and Japan. North Korea has been pressing to renew the six-party talks that have been stalled since 2008 because of its dire need for foreign aid, which it has been mostly cut off from since their nuclear weapons testing[3]. These talks have not been successful in the past because North Korea concealed information about its uranium enrichment program and has violated agreements by testing its nuclear weapons [4]. Although it is saying that it will denuclearize if it gets aid, other members of the talks are not convinced that will happen, as North Korea has not been truthful in the past and was the one who stopped the talks in April 2009 right before its second nuclear weapons test [4]. Another thing the US will have to deal with is trying to solve the problems in Korea and denuclearizing North Korea without starting a nuclear war. If North Korea is not appeased in the talks which are likely to resume eventually, they may become violent and attack South Korea. South Korea has vowed to "respond relentlessly" if it comes under attack, and war may resume between the two countries, where North Korea could end up using nuclear weapons [2].
I would advise Obama and Congress to resume the six-party talks as soon as possible, but only when North Korea has shown it is serious about demilitarizing and uses its actions instead of its words, which have been proven to be untrustworthy. South Korea wants North Korea to implement its previous pledges before talks resume, and I think that if North Korea does this, talks should begin again[5]. I think the US and other parties have the power to be fairly assertive and demanding in these talks because North Korea will not survive long without aid from us. The US and China should try to be on the same page as much as possible with this issue because if North Korea does not work towards denuclearization and the US denies aid to them, China may still give aid to them because they have close ties, and our work to denuclearize North Korea will be ruined.
1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122400774.html
2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122600219.html
3)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/05/AR2011010500550.html
4)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699
5)http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE6BG05Y20110104
Blog #8- Foreign Policy
A friend of mine (who is not in AP Gov) told me I should do my blog on the United Kingdom because it is “awesome.” Although I can’t help but agree that it is “awesome”, the U.K. is on pretty good terms with U.S. so instead I chose to write about Iran.
In the realm of foreign policy, I see Iran as one of the top priorities in 2011. The Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979 after the monarchy controlling the country was overthrown by religious clerics under the direction of Ayatollah Khomenei, who is now the Supreme Leader of the country (1). In 2002, former President Bush declared Iran a part of the “axis of evil,” accusing them of trying to develop nuclear power and although President Obama hasn’t voiced such an extreme opinion, the Federal Government still accuses Iran such developments (1). Despite this, President Obama came into office vowing to engage Iran in diplomatic relations. In 2009, Tehran (Iran’s capital for anyone not aware of that) accepted an offer for a solution in which uranium would be shipped out of the country for enrichment, but Iran quickly backed out of this (4).
In June 2010, the U.N. Security Council voted to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program after months of trying to persuade Russia and China. These sanctions were put in place because of Iran’s refusal to stop enriching uranium, (5). Recently the European Union has requested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should visit the nuclear sites in Iran (3). Although Britain, China, France, Russia, Germany and the U.S.- who have already met with Iran in Geneva on December 6 and 7 after a fourteen month hiatus- are scheduled to meet again with the country to discuss the Tehran atomic program, all of those countries, minus China and Russia, were not on the list of countries invited to see the sites, IAEA sources say (3)
In November 2010, a documents obtained and released by Wikileaks gave a report about how concerned neighboring Arab nations were regarding Iran’s nuclear program as well as stating that the U.S. believed it had obtained missiles from North Korea that could give it the ability to attack Western European nations and Moscow (4).
In addition to the issue of nuclear energy, Iran is still very involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are at risk (2). It also has an abundant resource of oil and is one of the world’s main exports (1).
Okay, so Iran is accused of having nuclear weapons and is a major source of oil. Although Iran insists that their weapon program is only used for peaceful purposes (5) the U.S. as well as the European nations and the IAEA are concerned. The question at hand is, what makes Iran so important? North Korea is accused of developing nuclear power and their state is Communist and, arguably, worse off than Iran. This blog post isn’t about which country is “worse off” though. It is about which country the U.S. should view as the most important to consider in the realm of foreign policy.
Iran, although not Communist, has many aspects of its government controlled by the Supreme Leader, which appoints the head of judiciary, military leaders, the head of radio, the head of television, and prayer leaders. He also confirms the election of Iran’s president (1), a pretty huge responsibility, and one that could definitely be abused. After the re- election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, which people accused of being rigged, the country saw the greatest internal unrest since 1979. Iranian authorities also claimed that foreign authorities, particularly the British, were generating the unrest (1). This clearly shows how unstable Iran has the potential to be as a country and that such a country with nuclear weapons in their hands has the potential to be very dangerous, even if they do declare that they only wish to use the weapons for peaceful purposes. Personally, just the use of “nuclear weapons” and “peaceful purposes” in the same sentence is completely contradictory and very sketchy. Also the fact that Iran is only inviting a select few nations to visit their nuclear sites seems odd, especially since the only two countries invited from the group that met with Iran in Geneva are either Communist (China) or are formally Communist (Russia). U.S. State Department Spokesperson, Philip Crowley stated of this issues, “It’s a pretty clear public relations stunt by Iran. So we don’t think that anyone who might take this tour is going to learn anything substantive on such a visit” (6). Basically, he is saying, that Iran is doing this to cooperate with the IAEA without actually giving anything away. He also implied that the U.S. would try to discourage the invited nations from attending (6).
Just the fact that Iran outwardly is talking about how they intend for their nuclear program to be “peaceful” while not inviting the U.S. among other countries for the tour of their nuclear facilities is a hurdle because it shows that we aren’t getting the full story from Iran. They are acting like they are going to give this grand tour and let the world, or at least the countries visiting, see what they have in store, but in reality they are being secretive and seem to only intend to give this tour to appear that they are doing the right thing.
As for advice, as a neo-isolationist I would tell Obama and Congress Iran isn’t their problem. But since that probably wouldn’t be taken very well and they wouldn’t listen to me, I would tell them to just be very cautious in dealing with Iran. We don’t want to upset Iran. They already decided not to invite us to their “tour” and if we don’t want to make matters worse with them. I understand that the governments doesn’t want the invited nations to go on the tour but unless they can get a number of nations to agree with them, they should keep their mouth shuts on the matter. Also, don’t forget Iran has a nice supply of oil. All in all, let’s not piss Iran off! I would prefer that we negotiate quietly with them over the issue of the tour and their nuclear power or just leave it alone.
Sources:
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/790877.stm
(2) http://americanforeignpolicy.org/overview-how-to-deal-with-iran/keys-to-engaging-iran-nuclear-democracy-iraq-afghanistan
(3) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hf81S07zBm8X7hp9JS-pK05KlnTw?docId=CNG.850d68793570b46d02fb10bce04d9b6d.6b1
(4) http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html
(5) http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Tightens-Sanctions-On-Iran-112260339.html
(6) http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/nuclear/9625-iranian-regimes-invitations-for-nuclear-site-tour-a-pr-stunt-us
The top foreign policy priority in 2011 should be removing the US military base in Okinawa. The current US military base located in Futenma is plagued by crimes caused by the troops stationed there, coastline destruction, and pollution (1). The Okinawans are bearing the primary burden of paying for the costs of the Futenma base, and they do not want to see their coastlines torn up to relocate the base to a different location in Okinawa (1). The Okinawans want the base removed completely from the island to reduce their economic burden and tensions between the troops and the civilians (5). Japan’s Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, is not gaining support from the Okinawans as tensions over the US military presence and base in Okinawa are causing Kan’s approval ratings to drop (3). The Futenma base is weakening relations the Japan-US security alliance which is crucial to the United States’ presence in Asia and the relationship with Japan in the six-party talks (2). US-Japan security ties and six-party talks are needed to promote stability and peace in Asia and promote North Korean denuclearization (2).
The 2006 agreement between the US and Japan to move the military base from Futenma to another part of the island could cause a hurdle for US military withdrawal from Okinawa (3). Prime Minister Naoto Kan has been unsuccessful in his attempts to fulfill this agreement and stir up public support for moving the Futenma base.
President Obama needs to talk with Prime Minister Naoto Kan to overturn the 2006 agreement to maintain a US military base on Okinawa, and instead, remove the base from the island. Just relocating the base to the other side of the island will not solve the tensions that are caused by the cost, pollution, and crimes that are caused by some of the US troops stationed at Okinawa. The US can maintain relations with Japan and even strengthen their diplomatic ties if the Okinawa base is completely removed. President Obama should also instruct the military to place stricter regulations on visitors at the base. Some personnel have been selling tours to of the Futenma base to people that they do not know, and this poses a threat to the security of the Futenma base (4). President Obama should implement the removal of the US military base in Okinawa and decrease the US troop presence, to improve relations with Japan.
1) http://original.antiwar.com/mendenhall/2010/12/21/obama-out-of-okinawa/
2) http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20101228D28JF850.htm
3)http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g11Rn998L_qtE4h2SfAHiLF4SDTA?docId=CNG.d897bfd619b0783f66c9c01fc2b236ba.91
4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8240227/US-soldiers-at-Japanese-base-selling-tours.html
5) http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article961354.ece
I think the biggest foreign policy issue facing America in 2011 has to be Mexico. I pick Mexico over any other country because it shares a boarder with the United States. The government has very little control of the country as a whole. The lack of order in Mexico due to the illegal drug trade is the single greatest reason why the Mexico is the top foreign policy issue of 2011. Drug cartels have spilled over the border into boarder towns where continue the violence. In December a boarder agent was killed while on patrol near the Arizona-Mexico boarder (1). One American was killed and another injured when members of a drug cartel opened fire on them in September as they were jet skiing on a lake that is partly in Mexico and partly in the United States (2). 28,000 people have died in Mexico due to the cartels (4).
There are many potential hurdles faced, when dealing with Mexico. First off American politicians are very fearful of angering the all important Hispanic voting block, by dealing with border issues and immigration. This fear leads to gridlock when dealing with foreign policy in Mexico. Secondly the Mexican government is slow to deal with the issue because politicians put there lives in danger when they try to crack down on the cartels. Law enforcement in Mexico is also known to be corrupted by the cartels, and even former law enforcement official have started their own gang called, Zetas (3). Third defending the boarder by building a fence or sending more National Guard soldiers cost money and politicians are trying to cut the budget not increase it.
I advise Congress to consider legalizing drugs such as Marijuana and Cocaine. The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers enough and not significantly cut down on the supply or demand for illegal drugs (4). Legalizing would save the tax payers 44.1 billion dollars in law enforcement costs each year and would bring in an estimated 32.7 billion dollars in additional revenue from taxation on currently illegal drugs (4). Legalizing would significantly reduce violence along the boarder as there would be little to no demand for drugs anymore. You never see people shoot each other over a 6 pack of beer, but during prohibition you did. This holds true for these illegal drugs. The truth is it is time for the United States to say that the War on Drugs is a failure and it is time for politicians and citizens to have an open discussion about the positives and negatives of legalization of illegal drugs.
(1)http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/us-mexico-border-war-hits-new-low-with-killing-of-policeman-in-gunfight-1.1075285
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/15/authorities-release-new-info-americans-shooting-death-border-lake/
(3)http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11903
(4)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575652784260546668.html?KEYWORDS=war+on+drugs
With a new year just starting the issue on what is the United States largest foreign policy priority for this year comes into play. I think that it is obvious to everyone that the largest issue is the issue over in the Middle East; however, I don’t feel like writing about that because I feel like it’s too “over-talk.” So, I’m going to talk about the whole North Korea/South Korea issue!
In October 2006, North Korea became the latest country to join the nuclear club (1). This started the struggle for the United States to try to get the North Koreans to get rid of their nuclear weapons. I believe that the issue of North Korea and South Korea is going to be a large foreign policy issue for the United States this year because at the end of 2010 North Korea and South Korea had exchange artillery fire and also there had been naval attacks from the North Koreans to the South (1). Not only that but last November North Korea had also revealed a vast new facility that was built secretly and quickly to enrich uranium, and the Obama administration had concluded that this new technology that the used to enrich the uranium was “significantly more advanced” than what Iran has struggled over two decades to assemble (1). I think that since the North’s nuclear program is proved to be more advanced then Iran’s, this makes North Korea a major issue in foreign policy.
For the North Korea and South Korea foreign policy, I think that the hardest part about it would be actually trying to persuade the North Korean government and military to agree to get rid of their nuclear weapons program, and continue their peace talks with the rest of the world.
I think that President Obama and Congress should continue the six party talks that consist of the countries: North and South Korea, Russia, China, Japan, and the United States. These seem to be somewhat helping, since in the annual New Year’s commentary, North Korea calls of dialogue with South Korea and a relaxation of tensions “as soon as possible (2). This shows that North Korea at least seems somewhat interested in finding peace with their neighbors to the south, though, this is because the North Koreans think that “if a war breaks out on this land, it will bring nothing but nuclear holocaust” (2). I also think that what is helping the Korean Peninsula situation is the fact that the United States is having talks with China to try to get China to talk to their close ally, North Korea, and try to convince them to get rid of their nuclear weapons (3). These talks with China seems to be very helpful since both China and the United States want to see stability on the Korean peninsula, and they both do not want to see North Korea emerge as a nuclear state (3).
1. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/northkorea/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=north%20korea&st=cse
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/world/asia/03iht-korea03.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=north%20korea&st=cse
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010600636_2.html
Upon further investigation I believe that the top foreign policy priority for 2011 will be trying to get North Korea to stop being so diabolically evil.
As we know, North Korea has developed a nuclear program, a rather successful and advanced one (1). Why is this bad, one might ask, considering several other countries also have nuclear weapons? Well, for starters, their government is not exactly the nicest in the world. There are 23 million people in North Korea and over half of them are starving. Their government has also been one of the most isolationist in history, and currently has an oppressive communist regime that does not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. Unfortunately, they also have the fourth largest army in the world (6). In 2009, North Korea had successfully tested two nuclear weapons, and therefore considered itself to no longer be bound to the terms of a 1953 ‘truce’ with South Korea. To make matters worse, just last year South Korea accused (with supporting evidence) North Korea of sinking one of their ships. North Korea became so enraged by the accusation that they terminated all relations with their neighboring country (6). This presents a problem because we are allied with the lovely South Korea and they’re scared that North Korea will attack them again, but they have pledged to retaliate if this should happen. South Korea also believes that they have been right all along, due to evidence analyzed by an international investigative team that points to a North Korean torpedo as the cause of the ship wreck (8).
Another reason we should care about the conflict on the Korean peninsula is because North Korea is interfering with the rocky relationship between China and the United States. China is allied with North Korea, while the United States is allied with south Korea. This conflict has the potential to escalate into nuclear war very quickly,which gets even more out of hand when two large and powerful countries become entangled in it. Tensions between the superpowers have heightened since the U.S. has begun scorning China over not pressuring their allies (in early Dec., 7).
An obstacle to this foreign policy dilemma is mainly communication. Although North Korea had previously agreed to participate in six party talks, nothing good came out of them because North Korea claimed that the other parties involved had not completed their end of the deal. Now, the U.S. and China are trying to start a new round of six party talks involving North and South Korea, despite China’s being allied with North Korea. They have finally agreed with the United States that something must be done about their “spoiled child”, but talks will only be resumed when the U.S. figures out whether North Korea is actually interested in peace, as they claim (9). As Kim Jong-Il has the personality of a comic book villain, I, among others, am skeptical of North Korea’s true agenda.
I would advise the government to push hard for peace talks while pressuring North Korea itself by reducing aid for its people if they choose not to cooperate and attend the new round of six party talks. China believes that that the conflict cannot be resolved by military threats (7), and I think that we should do everything in our power not to let this evolve into a costly and bloody war. Perhaps we could even provide another monetary incentive for them; stop provoking South Korea and the U.S. provides more humanitarian aid for their people. Whatever we do we need to do it fast and skillfully. North Korea is easily offended and clearly dangerous, so we must choose our words and actions tactfully.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/world/asia/15nukes.html?_r=1
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1131421.stm
7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11955625
8. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/north-korea-obama-china
9. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010602144.html
don’t ask about the numbering :)
Disputes with North and South Korea, and our dependency on China are only a few of the foreign policy issues that the United States needs work on. The top priority in 2011 should be Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran uses technology that enriches uranium to become nuclear power. The same technology can be used to enrich uranium to a higher level which can create nuclear explosions (1). The United States suspect that Iran is using this technology to make nuclear weapons or learning how to create them so they could potentially use them one day. The president has made his goal and top national security priority to be a world without nuclear weapons (4). It is said that Iran hid this technology for 18 years, so the Security Council suggests that Iran halt all enrichment and “nuclear activities” until a compromise can be worked out (1). The Council also wants Iran to invite the US to inspect their technology, to gain confidence that what Iran is claiming is indeed true. What is strange is that Iran recently invited China and Russia over to inspect their facilities, and didn’t include the United States (2). Working out the uncertainties with Iran should be a top priority. We should prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons, because they would be capable of killing millions of people.
A hurdle for addressing this issue is that Iran provides the United States with a large amount of oil. If we make any rational decisions, ties could be cut and the US would be in big trouble. Also Iran hasn’t talked to the United States. They are keeping secrets, and not including us in the inspections of their facilities. Surprisingly, a six party talk has been scheduled for later this month in Istanbul to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. It’s unlikely that Iran will abandon its nuclear weapons though, just as they have pulled out of negotiations in the past (3). Communications is one of the biggest hurdles they could have.
President Obama and Congress should try and get a little more serious about this issue. During the Bush administration, they learned how to enrich uranium. If Iran was one of his top priorities he wouldn’t have let them get this far with their technology development (5). Stopping Iran is going to take time; there isn’t one idea that will solve this problem entirely. An approach could be to negotiate by letting them continue to enrich at a limited scale while the US conducts a thorough search of their facilities (5). No, this approach isn’t an ideal one, but at least it has a small change of succeeding.
1.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428
2. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/592831
3. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100070057/top-10-foreign-policy-challenges-facing-barack-obama-in-2011/
4.http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/03/after_new_start_obama_must_move_forward_on_missile_defense
5. http://americanforeignpolicy.org/overview-how-to-deal-with-iran/keys-to-engaging-iran-nuclear-democracy-iraq-afghanistan
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foreign policy is a great thing to talk about because it is very relevant in our current society today. These times are very rough and sluggish because we have divided government. The number one issue that the United States Government has to decide is on what we need to do with North Korea. Now all of you are probably saying ohh we don't need to worry about North Korea, they are just going to continue to control the Korean Peninsula. Why didn't I choose soomething else? Well, I actually believe that they have the biggest threat to our current nation. Jim Bremmer, a reporter went over to South Korea, and he went over their and this is what he had to say. "North Korea is probably the only place in the world that large-scale conventional warfare is possible." (1). He said this after he realized all of the missiles that they had. They have increase their production significantly and satellites have shown some of the Nuclear Power plant and they have also seen some missile silos. (2).
With all of these new advancements in Nuclear technology, there is another thing that makes North Korea one of the most vulnerable countries to deal with, yet we need to fix their problems. They are strong allies with China. China and North Korea are both Communists and they want to spread this form of government. I believe that the United States needs to try and talk and make negotiations with China and try to tell them that they shouldn't give support to North Korea. I also believe that we should give support to South Korea and make sure that they don't get destroyed by North Korea.
My plans for these policies are always entertaining, and I would like to make another entertaining and completely unrealistic idea.
I believe that we should take a nuclear bomb, and place it on a spy plane. We will then drop the bomb onto North Korea, destroying all of North Korea.Then South Korea will takeover North Korea and then it will be called the United Peninsula of Korea, very fitting. I also believe that if we do it in secret, nothing will happen. This is the best way to go about things, and it will get rid of our national security threat!
Sources:
1. http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/the-top-5-global-political-risks-of-2011/
2. http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/swiss-res-global-risks-2010-report/
The Top foreign policy for United States in 2011 has to be China. They are a country, who are not enemy or an ally at the moment right now. Conflicts like the Middle East may be big but China I think is an upcoming problem for the United States and we need to take action before a conflict arises and we should not be focused on catching Mr. Bin Laden, who eventually will die aging along with his clueless brainwashed extremists so called terrorists, and wasting soldiers lives and money on Middle East conflict in 2011. China is dominating world economy and its growing bigger as a super power. China’s military is predicted to be the most powerful military by 2020. China is one of he few countries to produce its own military weapons and China makes from frag grenade to fighter jets. China recently started its development of advanced military equipments and had made a stealth fighter competition to US military F35 and F22’s and China also makes new technology to counter missiles (5). China is making progress in advancing their military to next generation standard to face opponents even if it’s the United States (1). I don’t have a problem with country developing weapons for defensive purposes but China is taking it all the way to build UAV hellfire missile systems, and nuclear warheads. This has also caused a race for weapon technology in Asia and countries like India and Russia and they have started to produce warheads and enrich uranium to upgrade the nuclear stockpiles. China remains as one of the most powerful nations in the other side of world and its expanding its intelligence agency to a wider network. China also has a closer relationship with North Korea than any other countries (2).
Hello everyone!
I believe that the top priority in U.S. foreign policy is North Korea! They have been threatening the U.S., South Korea, etc. for years with their nuclear powers and that is just scary and not good! We don’t want a nuclear war! That would be awful! We would all die. The idea of a nuclear war is stupid. No one would win. Anyways, he issues in North Korea are becoming a significant concern. For example, last July, there was an incident of a South Korean warship being sunk, which killed a great number of people. North Korea was suspected to be involved in this, and they threatened the United States and South Korea that they would create a “nuclear deterrence” if they ordered naval involvement(1). In November, tensions increased, when North Korea launched missiles that targeted Yeonpyeong, a South Korean Island that had a small military population along with a civilian population of 1,300(2). These hostile attacks and threats that North Korea has made has revealed how imperative it is for the United States to be aware of this and make it a top priority to solve.
There are definitely a few hurdles that the U.S. will have to jump in regards to addressing this issue. First of all, attempts to mediate and better the relationship with North and South Korea, is next to impossible. However this would possibly be the solution to the conflicts. North and South Korea have been in bad relations for years. North Korea’s Communist government has greatly divided them, and the Korean War in 1950-1953 certainly did not help to reconcile them(1). Another hurdle is the lack of leverage the U.S. has for its talks with North Korea. There were some decisions made, years ago, like talking North Korea off the state sponsor of terror list, and returning Kim Jim Il’s $25 million of ill-gotten gains, that lowered the U.S.’s amount of leverage significantly(3). One thing the U.S. can do to gain more leverage is reimposing financial sanctions on the country’s leaders(3).
My advice to President Obama and the Congress on dealing with this issue is to use as much diplomacy and negotiations as possible. I know it will be difficult to talk with North Korea, seeing as the United States does not have an ambassador for that country, but I believe that it is the way to go. Some military involvement may be necessary to protect civilians, and for back up in emergency situations, but non-violent ways are better. Mainly because increased military involvement could spur this situation into a war, which could lead to a nuclear war, which I have above stated would be a catastrophe! Also, our involvement militarily would make it easier for the communist government to make the U.S. look like evil war lovers who are out to get them. Having peaceful talks would definitely not portray this! This is what I would do. : )
Sources
(1)http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100723/north-korea-asian-security-forum-100723/
(2)http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/28/china-calls-urgent-talks-north-korea/
(3)http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/01/obama_needs_leverage_for_north_korea_talks
I believe the top foreign policy issue in 2011 will be Afghanistan. The United States’ involvement in Afghanistan has been controversial practically since the war began in 2001, it and has become increasingly unpopular. Obama has promised to start removing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, and this is sure to be a complicated task(1). If the United States starts the drawdown of troops, it will mean a start to ending one of the longest wars in American history(2). However, it is also possible that Obama’s administration could extend the deadline or ignore it. This could cause a lot of problems for the U.S.(2). Recently, a U.S. Senator suggested that the United States maintain permanent military bases in Afghanistan(3). The Taliban responded to this proposal via an online message, saying that the senator’s comments demonstrated how America is determined to occupy Afghanistan and take away citizens’ rights(3). The senator said that the bases would help Afghanistan’s armed forces fight the Taliban and also mentioned that most Afghan people don’t want to be under control of the Taliban. The issue of the U.S. involvement is tricky because the U.S. has been there for so long but is still encountering problems with terrorists. President Obama has not put forth his detailed plans for continued presence in Afghanistan, so the next few months will be crucial(3).
One example of complications that the U.S. could come across is problems with the Taliban. The Taliban is very active in Afghanistan as well as in neighboring Pakistan, which has also been experiencing political turmoil lately. With Pakistan as a safe place for the Taliban it will be extremely difficult for the U.S. to get any sort of victory or stability(1). Another potential problem is the ability of the Afghan forces. At this point they are at a very low level and would be unable to defend themselves(1). A U.S. military general in Afghanistan said that the war is basically a never-ending game of cat and mouse(4). If the American forces cannot even obtain a victory, the Afghan forces are sure to have trouble. The government in Afghanistan is another hurdle to the United States’ plans. The government in Afghanistan has a history of instability and the Kabul government is corrupt. Unless the government becomes more just and stable it will be difficult for the U.S. to remove troops quickly(1).
My advice for Obama and Congress is to stick to your plan as closely as possible without ignoring the needs of Afghanistan. In my opinion, we have been in Afghanistan for far too long and the Afghan people will have to be on their own at some point. At the same time, I think we should remove our troops gradually so Afghanistan can adapt to the new circumstances. I would also recommend leaving a small number of troops in Afghanistan for a while to further train the Afghan forces and help protect the people from the Taliban and even their own corrupt government. Obama should start to remove troops in July 2011 like he said because that will make him appear trustworthy and competent. Along with removal of troops, the U.S. should continue to give moderate aid to Afghanistan and change the amount or type of aid depending on the circumstances. It is difficult to predict exactly what will happen in Afghanistan, but my general advice is to gradually remove troops and to give a moderate amount of other forms of aid until Afghanistan becomes self-sufficient.
1. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100070057/top-10-foreign-policy-challenges-facing-barack-obama-in-2011/
2. http://thefastertimes.com/foreignpolicy/2011/01/01/five-issues-for-2011/
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010605244.html
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/afghanistan-us-military-tom-and-jerry-cartoon_n_803605.html
For this exciting new year, the only foreign policy that’s on my mind is the Korea’s. Another foreign policy problem are Dr. Brian the Blogger’s African pirates. This should not be a huge deal, however, because Brian has advised the president to use brutal force to eliminate all potential hostilities. The situation’s looking a tiny bit more precarious in the Korea’s. Seeing as South Korea is our ally, we have to be careful in our maneuvers! I feel this is an important topic to address because upon typing in “north and south Korea” into Google, there are plenty of results. The most recent is from November 23rd, 2010 and talks of the fourth attack that North Koreans and South Koreans have launched in recent years (1). Looking further down the page, I read that North Korea will not retaliate because of the drills that South Korea is continuing with near the border (2). North and South Korea’s relations are not in any way friendly.
I can see hurdles. The first is an economic hurdle. No matter how much the South Korean’s deny it, their economy remains vulnerable as long as the battles continue (3). Another hurdle that I believe exists is self confidence. I think that South Korea originally was too confident that they were right (3). I feel as if South Korea could not predict North Korea’s power. Yet another hurdle that I can see is the hurdle of support back home. People are tired of wars! It’s just black and white for you. No red, white, and blue. Who’s waving their flag after ‘Nam? Some, I suppose, but after so many recent military failures (which we still claim we win, by the way), I feel that support for the Korea’s is waning.\
For this policy issue, I suggest that we firstly go into the area without feeling that the United States and South Korea will prevail. This, in turn, will cause us to be less careless about where we station troops and how many troops we need, what supplies to give, etc. Secondly, I feel that our next step is to pass the peace talks. At this point, compromise just does not feel as if it is an option. Why not fun South Korea a little bit more? However, I wouldn’t want our nation to get even more egotistical. We have to be realistic. We do not have much money to spend on other countries and neither do we have lots of time to involve ourselves so deeply in others problems. Still, I agree with Obama, because he feels that an attack on our allies is an attack on the United States. We need to defend our allies. The United States has already resorted to publicly denouncing the North Koreans (4). I feel this is a good start. Now can we finish this conflict? I can tell you one thing that Obama and Congress need to do: get constituents in the United States excited about foreign policy!
1.) http://abcnews.go.com/International/north-korea-south-korea-exchange-fire-western-maritime-border/story?id=12220759
2.) http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101220/south-korea-artillery-drills-101220/
3.) http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=242
4.) http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122453
The United States is entering an "Age of Limitation" when it comes to diplomatic and defense spending. We are cutting way back on our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and terrorism is no longer as hot of an issue. The main job of the secretary of defense will now shift from offensive, military spending, to peacekeeping (1). I think the new big issue for American foreign policy is China. As most people have noticed, China is on the rise, and a serious threat to the US. They're threat is somewhat hard to detect, which makes it twice as dangerous. Many people think China is just "communist by name" and don't understand how intensely communist and authoritarian they actually are. The Party controls every institution, every department, everything that affects the lives of their citizens, but in a very quiet way that is hard to detect, but it's there. They have had a 10% annual growth for 30 years. Other countries are becoming envious of China's success and wish to copy their model, which presents a danger to America if other countries start to promote communism (2). There are many hurdles to jump for our country on this issue. The main one is just how darn powerful China is. The Party continues to grow stronger, and has proved impossible to topple or even slightly weaken. Their influence on other nations will also be a tough obstacle, as I mentioned above (2).
My advice to Obama and Congress is to use the fact that the country's attention on the terrorist threat is fading. Since the public is not focused on one scare at the moment, it will be easy to get them to focus on China. As far as foreign policy goes, Obama should invest time and money into diplomatic negotiations with China to ensure that they are not a threat to us. History has taught us not to be good friends with Communists, and we should remember that.
1. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/07/132731851/foreign-policy-pentagon-budget-cut-is-a-smart-move
2. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/5_myths_about_the_chinese_communist_party?page=0,4
I think that the biggest foreign policy issue of 2011 is going to be something as entirely unpredictable as the BP oil spill was for domestic policy of 2010. However, there’s no point in guessing what unlikely event will actually occur; it is preferable to evaluate what foreign policy issue is most likely to cause a significant stir. If the Israel-Palestine conflict is resolved or if Israel overruns Palestine and turns it into an apartment complex, the Israel-Palestine conflict will probably be the biggest issue. Certainly, if North Korea nukes South Korea or Kim Jong-Il suddenly dies and North Korea collapses, North Korea will be the greatest issue of 2011. However, let’s shift away from a country with the potential to maybe get nukes and 24 million people in play (1) and refocus on their next door neighbor: China, with 1.33 billion people (2) and around 40 ICBMs ready for launch, is a much more significant foreign policy issue than North Korea (3).
By pulling out the nuclear statistics, I don’t mean to suggest that the US and China are on the brink of some chess-like, first-striking nuclear conflict, or that China would even stand a chance should things become so immediate. However, China has clearly shown interest in building its military: for instance, the country has undergone a massive increase in naval forces in recent years in search of what China calls “far sea defense” (6). The United States’ present military power depends on its dominant economy, with the government spending $25 billion each year just to maintain its nuclear arsenal (7). More concerning is China’s rising power in research and development. The United States Manhattan Project during World War 2 underscored our triumph in innovation as we beat each of the warring powers to the development of an unfathomably superior new weapon. Today, China clearly sees the advantages of controlling innovation, funding research programs including an aggressive supercomputer project that has recently surpassed the best the United States can muster (8). When the United States took on Spain in the 1898 Battle of Santiago de Cuba, it was our newly built ironclad warships that destroyed the Spanish fleet and saw previously unmatched Spanish sea power out the door (9). In case that example is too archaic for you, consider this. In 1963 the Soviet Union detonated the “Tsar Bomba” device, a 100 megaton yield bomb that remains the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed. However, within a few years the development of accurate ICBMs with multiple small warheads that could tactically carpet and destroy an area entirely surpassed Soviet dominance in the race for bigger bombs (11). Military power is very much in innovation, not in how big one power can make its old technology.
China also presents a diplomatic problem: as one of the five UN Security Council members with veto power, China has the ability to unilaterally defend its actions against any sanctions or “peacekeeping” enforcements which the UN might take against a lesser state. Although past Security Council vetoes have been overwhelmingly brought by the US and UK, in recent years China has started to flex its veto muscles (4).
According to Dale Jorgenson, a Harvard economist, “The United States will need to come to terms with the fact that its prevalence in the world is fated to come to an end” (10). That article elaborates on my point much more concisely than I can. And I rambled too much about military power; no one is willing to read more writing anyway. So read #10.
(1) http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:PRK&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+north+korea
(2) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
(3) http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.html
(4) http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/tables-and-charts-on-the-security-council-0-82/subjects-of-un-security-council-vetoes.html
(5) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10181725
(6) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/world/asia/24navy.html?_r=1&ref=asia
(7) http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/silverberg.aspx
(8) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10181725
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Santiago_de_Cuba (Sorry for Wikipedia)
(10) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40989788/ns/business-world_business/
(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
What do you see as the top foreign policy priority for the U.S. in 2011 and why?
The top foreign policy priority for the U.S. in 2011 will be our important and changing relationship with the People’s Republic of China. As China has become stronger as an economic and cultural power, the whole world has viewed the growing nation as having the potential to one day become one of the strongest in the world [1]. It is in the U.S.’s interest to embrace China and become acquaintances with a nation that has an incredible number of resources and power.
What do you see as the potential hurdles for addressing this issue?
Potential difficulties that the U.S. and China may come across deal heavily with commerce between the two countries and the ever-testy nuclear relationship with North Korea. In addition, the U.S. has criticized the controversial human rights disaster in Tibet and China has been wary of the U.S.’s arms support of Taiwan, a democratic country [2]. Both nations are pushing eachother’s buttons, with neither side seemingly interested in relenting.
What advice do you have for Obama and Congress in dealing with this foreign policy issue?
Well, at least at this point thus far the two countries seem to be interested in working with eachother. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will soon travel to China in hopes of strengthening the U.S.- China military relationship [3]. China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was also quoted saying that relations between the two countries was on the “right track”; he also stressed that the two sides are "confronted with common challenges" and are "enjoying common opportunities [4]." Publicly, the two countries want to work together which is a positive step in the right direction. In many ways, China needs the U.S.’s embrace and acceptance; it would symbolize a great deal on the world stage and send a strong message to other nations that the two superpowers are working together.
[1] http://thefastertimes.com/foreignpolicy/2011/01/01/five-issues-for-2011/
[2] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/02/big_trouble_with_big_china
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70600P20110107?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
[4] http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Obama-Reaffims-Desire-for-Positive-US-China-Relationship-112931059.html
I think that the top foreign policy priority for the U.S to focus should be immigration. Immigrants who come into the U.S do not always come into this country in a stable fiscal situation and this could put a toll on our welfare programs. “Immigrants with no means of support should be excluded if they come in simply to obtain government welfare greater than what they would get at home” [1]. Also immigrant family are more likely to need government aid then American Families “immigrant participation in welfare programs is on the rise”[2]. The net immigration rate is 880,000 people per year [3].
A potential hurdle for this issue is that it could be put on the political back burner because Congress and the President do not see it as a pressing issue. Also because the annual rate of immigration has been steady the last few years the government might be content with how the system is working. However I think there will be future issue with immigrants such as a possible bioterror attack [4]. And by the time the government tries to address this problem it will be already too late.
I think that President Obama and Congress should try to limit immigration by setting stricter standards on the number of immigrants we let into the U.S. Also we should have a stricter boarder control on all side of the country [4]. I am not suggesting that we put a giant fence around the country, just that we have better enforcement on the laws we currently have.
[1] http://www.progress.org/fold163.htm
[2] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n4_v48/ai_18111837/pg_2/ aes)
[3] http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
[4], http://in.news.yahoo.com/ani/20080331/r_t_ani_sc/tsc-new-geological-age-similar-to-65-mil-f32bc39.html
[5] http://www.defendcoloradonow.org/perspective/art_negative_effects.html
If America should be concerned about any other country at this moment it deffinatly has to be North Korea. North Korea is very dangerous and even harder to negotiate with. On top of that there is simply too much unrest between North and South Korea for the United States to ignor, especially when around 37,000 troops are stationed in South Korea. News of a Uranium enrichment plant makes things a lot more serious as well. The United States and South Korea seem to believe that there are even more that are not known of yet[2].
Potential problems that I can see coming up is North Korea's shear un ability to negotiate and follow through with thier promisses. If negotitations are too difficult to make, peaceful actions will be too difficult to keep and violence might be the tactic that is choice for North Korea and the United States. I know that the least thing this counrty wants or needs is another war. The thuing that would make this war so much worse then others is the fact that it deffinatly could go nuclear and many countries could get sucked in such as China. China is a powerfull country and is definatly a country that we dont want on the enemies side.
In my opinion what President Obama and congress need to do is handle this situation very carefully. They need to be aware that in this part of the world it really does not take a lot to start escalate to fighting. They need to persist their peacefull talks and keep trying to get things resolved peacefully. Obama needs to realize that this tactic will definatly take patience. With this approach war is a lot more avoidable.
[1][http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040608-rok-troop-plans.htm
[2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699
When it comes to foreign policy, I feel that our main focuses and concerns lie within China. China’s military is predicted to be the most powerful military by 2020 (1). China also produces their own military weapons and technology. Through this, China is quickly and quietly becoming a world superpower, and the question looms: Would the United States be able to handle an upsurge of power?
Currently in China, his or her government dominates each citizen’s life. They have had a 10% annual growth for 30 years (1). It has been said that other countries are becoming jealous of China's success and control and are considering adopting similar models. This obviously presents a danger to America if other countries start to promote communism as well.
My advice for President Obama would be to continue foreign diplomacy with China and stay on their good side. I feel that if the lines of communication are open between our countries, there is not much more we can do. You know what they say: keep your friends close, but the foreign countries that could potentially become your enemies closer.
(1) http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/18/europe-becomes-china-s-biggest-trade-partner.html
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/north-korea-obama-china
North Korea should be a major concern for the United States. North Korea has developed a nuclear program. Satellites have shown some of the Nuclear Power plant and they have also seen some missile silos.There are 23 million people in North Korea and over half of them are starving this shows that the North Korean government isn’t very nice. Their government has also been very isolationist in history, and currently has an oppressive communist regime that does not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. Unfortunately, they also have the fourth largest army in the world. President Obama and the Congress should be dealing with this issue by using as much diplomacy and negotiations as possible. Military involvement might be needed but it has to be used carefully or a war might break out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1131421.stm
(2)http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/28/china-calls-urgent-talks-north-korea/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home