Post #2 for Tri 2
I would like to thank Arthur for these prompt suggestions. We were going to do a foreign policy post this tri any way so I decided to take up Arthur's suggestions. Other students can also give me prompt ideas. :)
Pick ONE of the following prompts to respond to:
*What do you think the next administration (Obama or GOP candidate) should prioritize when it comes to foreign policy?
*What should the Obama administration do in response to the death of Kim Jong Il? Does the new North Korean leadership pose a risk or a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives?
*To what extent should the US go to war to protect its foreign and domestic interests? Do you believe that America should use its military power to get what it wants?
Your response is due by class time on Friday, January 13th.
Labels: foreign policy
posted by maby-keirstead @ 7:16 AM
26 Comments:
*To what extent should the US go to war to protect its foreign and domestic interests? Do you believe that America should use its military power to get what it wants?
I personally believe that the United States should not invade countries simply because they want to impose democracy upon other nations. In my belief, the United States should only go to war if the opposing country is a threat to the United State's safety or the protection of an ally country. So no, American should not use its military power to just get what it wants. I consider that to be an abuse of power and find it very immoral for implement changes by military force. For instance, I believe America’s society was more hurt than helped after becoming involved with Vietnam in the Vietnam War. I believe this war involves mainly the second question for this post. From what I can tell the United States essentially went to war with Vietnam because they feared the spread of Communism [1]. Vietnam was never actually a proven threat to the United States. In a way we were fighting a war that was none of our business. Other than trading technicalities, the United States was not being effected by the spread of Communism. Fighting another person’s war, South Vietnam’s war, is not the best way to prevent the spread of Communism and was eventually found to be quite ineffective [1].
Even more important than the illegitimate reasons for being involved in the war are both the long and short term implications. This war hurt the economy, public moral, foreign affairs, and society as a whole [2]. The United States basically lost a generation from the large amount of deaths, around 58,148 Americans, from people who were on average twenty three years old [3]. The total death toll was actually around three million, including the majority of these deaths being Vietnamese people [7]. This does not even include the amount of injured soldiers and the emotional trauma they went through during the war. They had a daily body count on the nightly news, which was very detrimental to the United State’s moral as a society. In addition, this war split the country and caused violence back home. The Kent State shootings, a result of protests by college students against the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia, is just one of the numerous events that showed societal uproar and national turmoil [4]. It showed both the discontent of the government’s actions in Vietnam and the inability for the United States to enforce a peaceful form of free speech. While some of the students were using violent means to protest, such as burning down the local recruitment center, it was not a just cause the Ohio National Guard to end up killing four students [5]. This tragedy even called, “a wound in the nation’s history,” by Jay Winter, a Yale Historian [6]. In addition, this war hurt the nation’s foreign relations. For instance, the “Christmas Bombings” that occurred was greatly condemned by other nations [7].
In the end, no one really won the Vietnam War. They just had to pull out of the war, since the attempted peace agreement was not effective or signed during their first attempts to end the war [7]. In a way, it was a pointless war and really just hurt society as a whole, rather than having any major benefits. The United States spent over $120 billion on the war alone, which led to inflation, divided society, made America lose its image of being invulnerable, and greatly hurt the returning soldiers [7]. Therefore, I believe that the United States should have little power to go into war unless it is protecting the nation or an ally from immanent danger.
[1]https://docs.google.com/a/isd271.org/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mKASxycWlIAJ:www.schoolhistory.co.uk/gcselinks/britishworld/vietnam/getinvolved.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESga-i7PSJaDhLLyGS47OxfIbrXthG_0_Lm_Dpg8Q5VymrtQtjn5Kn0R9yEK_5X-mUWnbRzwLXjBfdD1rWpG2hFpDuR_9NNhrJHz2ZviH0o77pDiJv9Q8pjgn9OWx3bdkJgnEhWb&sig=AHIEtbS4AXqX2Mf0dHg3Gp4vTow2u3lpRA
[2]http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/47440/george-c-herring/america-and-vietnam-the-unending-war
[3]http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html
[4]http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0504.html
[5]http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm
[6]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-03-kent-state_N.htm
[7]http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war
What should the Obama administration do in response to the death of Kim Jong Il? Does the new North Korean leadership pose a risk or a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives?
I do not believe that the Obama Administration should take any action to either advance nor limit US options with North Korea. The largest decision that we currently face is whether or not to provide North Korea with the food aid that they are requesting. Talks over how the food assistance will be carried out have been going back and forth for nearly a year, and North Korea now accuses the United States of “politicizing food aid” (1). Although the Obama Administration continues to deny that this is occurring, I believe that we SHOULD use this aid as a playing card with North Korea. It becomes disturbingly apparent when you examine North Korea’s policies on foreign relations that the United States lacks anything substantial with which to bargain. The food aid that the US provided to North Korea in the past was not used for its intended goal; much of the food shipments were handed directly over to the military, and very little filtered down to the other citizens of North Korea (3). North Korea also demonstrated their lack of commitment to receiving aid from the United States when they refused food shipments in 2009 due to anger over their long-range rocket testing (2). In 2009 North Korea also abandoned the 6-party talks that centered on drawing down their nuclear program, and the United States is still attempting to restart the talks (4). The food aid can be used to encourage North Korea to rejoin these talks, but they need to make the first move before we begin to send in more assistance.
Aside from the food aid, I believe that the United States should wait to take action until China and South Korea determine their own courses of action. China‘s current goal is to stabilize North Korea before attempting to improve the country (7). The United States should try to align with China’s stance to promote a unified message to North Korea. The biggest concern to China is war (caused by instability), and they do not want to push for denuclearization until stability under the new regime is reached. The six party talks were scheduled to restart, but the death of Kim Jong Il led North Korea to “indefinitely” postpone them. As Kim Jong-un takes over, the 5 other countries are waiting for his signal regarding the talks (5). So far, things look promising, as Kim Jong-un will probably continue with the policies that Kim-Jong Il had outlined before his death (6). If the talks can resume, then the United States can focus on increasing relations with North Korea, but until those talks happen, there is no reason to assume that North Korea’s new leadership will be anything but reactionary. The Obama Administration should air on the side of caution during this transition period, and follow China’s lead in waiting for North Korea’s signal. We should continue to draw out the promise of food aid so to ensure that the food will 1. Go to the right individuals and 2. Not encourage North Korea’s nuclear program. In an ideal world, North Korea should receive nothing until they prove that they can follow through on their own promises.
Sources:
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577154231133978476.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-25/china-japan-north-korea-talks/52215724/1
3. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31785.pdf pg.13
4. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/12/116_101055.html
5. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/12/113_101116.html
6. http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=124604&code=Ne2&category=2
7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/amid-n-korea-succession-china-makes-push-for-stability/2012/01/04/gIQApZFIaP_story.html
Many of the GOP candidates’ campaigns have focused most of their attention on the US economy and other National problems. However, they also have many foreign policy issues to deal with and will have to prove that they can handle them well if they hope to win over President Obama. One daunting problem that should be high up on the ‘To-Do’ list of candidates is finding a way to deal with Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. This is an issue with no easy answer. Iran is relatively close to Israel and has developed missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel (3). Israel is adamant that Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and has indicated that they are ready to attack Iran's nuclear development facilities to prevent this from happening (4). Several of Iran's nuclear scientists have turned up dead recently (one died in a bomb blast just last night) and it is widely believed that Mossad, Israel's secret service, is responsible for executing the scientists (5). The US has imposed economic sanctions on Iran in an effort to get them to stop their work on nuclear weapons, and many European countries have indicated that they may also impose sanctions (6). The sanctions appear to be having an effect on Iran, but not the desired effect. Iran has stated that they are prepared to close the Straits of Hormuz if the sanctions are not rescinded (7). The Straits of Hormuz are a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. The Straits are strategically important because 20% of the world's oil supply is shipped through the Straits and if this oil is cut off, the economies of all developed nations will be affected (8). Closing the Straits would also be a violation of international law and possibly grounds for a declaration of war (9).
1. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/opinion/sick-iran-us-relations/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
2. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/amid-claims-of-more-captured-drones-a-report-on-their-vulnerability/?ref=cyberwarfare
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/israel-missile-iran_n_1071052.html
4. http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/18/is-israel-preparing-to-attack-iran/
5. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Iran+leader+says+Mossad+behind+scientist+murder/5984341/story.html
6. http://bostonherald.com/news/international/general/view/20120112japan_supports_us_sanctions_pledges_to_buy_less_iranian_oil
7. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18409/closing_time.html
8. http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/12/28/irans-threats-to-close-strait-of-hormuz-would-have-major-economic-implications/
9. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/at-end-of-drill-iran-army-chief-warns-us-aircraft-carrier-not-to-return-to-persian-gulf/2012/01/03/gIQAnUWjXP_story.html
I am addressing the third question: “To what extent should the US go to war to protect its foreign and domestic interests? Do you believe that America should use its military power to get what it wants?”
Setting aside ethical concerns- I dislike war in any form, and the way this question is phrased calls to mind extremely doubtful reasons to commit war- I do not believe that war is in the best interests of the United States in basically all situations. I believe that war is fundamentally bad foreign policy, and a solution of last resort. Furthermore, U.S. wars since WWII have had a rather bad track record of U.S. success. I’d like to examine a few of the wars in recent memory, and a few prospective conflicts that I could see occurring in the future.
The Korean War: Occurring about 60 years ago, this is probably not relevant to modern military policy. Still, it should be noted that this war was in essence a bloody draw where the U.S. didn't know when to stop and managed to provoke China into the war by our aggressiveness. It set up a set of diplomatic relations with North Korea that are still problematic today(1).
Vietnam: It argues against military intervention for itself. 'Nuff said.
Iran-Contra affair: Reagan, selling weapons to terrorists, despite a congressional embargo, ignoring campaign promises, to fund a pet rebellion. It failed to resolve an ongoing hostage crisis with these terrorists and it's really quite difficult to see how exactly this benefitted the U.S(2). Not a war, but another example of a poor interventionist foreign policy.
First Gulf War: While protecting the autonomy of Kuwait was a decent goal, this war was probably more oil-motivated. This war did not properly resolve matters, however, and tensions would keep simmering with Iraq, culminating in another war(3). You can't send troops places and expect all political issues to mystically resolve themselves, yet this is apparently what the U.S.- led coalition expected.
Afghanistan: Invaded shortly after 9/11, because we had heard Al-Qaeda was there. In the meantime, we make enemies of the Taliban and shatter an already weak national government. We finally kill Bin Laden, the man we set out to kill after 9/11, 10 years later. Al-Qaeda, in the meantime, has not done anything particularly noteworthy. Seems like overmuch work for retaliation for an act that was likely induced by U.S. backing of Israel, a rather belligerent state(4). This is a mess that we are only now sorting out. I feel it was not well thought out, begun in a moment where rational thought was difficult, and improperly carried out. I don't dispute the motive- protecting U.S. citizens- but this may have been the single worst way to accomplish that goal.
Second Gulf War: Invaded based on trumped-up rumors of weapons, the U.S.-led coalition easily finishes what it started in the 90's, only to find out that they were basically incapable of assembling anything to take the place of the old regime (3). We've left them with a government where there is a warrant out for the arrest of the vice-president, who is able to hide within the borders of the country because authorities do not dare go into certain places(5). Oh, and we haven't really withdrawn- we've left a bunch of private contractors behind, so we can say the Army itself is not there(6). Far from stabilizing the Middle East and its precious oil, we just cause more problems.
So in the past 60 or so years, interventionist foreign policy has really concretely failed to actually advance U.S. interests. There are a few conflicts I can see happening in the near future, let's look at them next:
Iran: Developing nuclear weapons, and there is nothing we can do to stop them. Israel gets a nervous twitch anytime it is brought up. Much as the Mossad can work against Iran's program, it really is just a matter of time. They've also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz(7). Invading Iran would be a bad, bad idea though- like the First and Second Gulf Wars plus Afghanistan all rolled into one. The terrain does not favor invaders, there is an actual government that has a moderately powerful armed force, and it is doubtful we could earn the sympathy of the populace. And, what's the downside to not invading? I doubt Iran would use a nuke, and if they do- the only situation in which I will ever recommend use of force- justified nuclear reprisal is likely to be carried out by Israel, not the U.S. As for this whole Strait of Hormuz deal, it would devastate Iranian economies(8). Iran would be hurt worse than us. Furthermore, a war with Iran would cause more damage to all involved parties than merely closing the Straits would. Clearly, whatever the answer to Iran, it's not war.
North Korea: Kim Jong Il wasn't loony enough to advocate using nukes, and the new regime is unlikely to either. North Korea has very little ability to project power aside from nukes, and invading the country will not go well either. They have spent the past 50-60 years making their country as impervious as possible, and I really don't see an upside to any invasions we may do. The best policy with North Korea is an economic one, using trade to create a friendlier nation.
In the light of all of this, I do not see any way the U.S. military could be the best solution to any problems arising in the near future, and do not advocate for U.S. military intervention.
(1) http://www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/2-korea/1-timeline/index.html
(2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
(3) http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12024253
(5) http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/21/iraq-vice-president-denies-charges-running-death-squads/
(6) http://www.npr.org/2011/05/17/136357821/as-u-s-military-exits-iraq-contractors-to-enter
(7) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9008790/Hillary-Clinton-Irans-Straits-of-Hormuz-threats-provocative-and-dangerous.html
(8) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-11/iran-might-hurt-self-most-by-closing-strait-of-hormuz-oil-route.html
In this day and age, contrary to decades past, I believe that the United States should, by all means, go to war to defend its interests at home and abroad. I feel that any direct threat to the safety of Americans is unquestionably worthy of war. Other than that what causes a war to be needed? Trade? Strategic resources? Human Rights? All of these are valid causes for sure, but to what extent is military conflict necessary?
Trade, specifically a lack thereof, could be a very compelling reason to go to war. The urgency of it could be further exacerbated if the trade is vital to the economic functioning of the nation. In the case of the U.S., many believe if China were to cut off trade the U.S. would be in a dire circumstances. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, we do import a significant amount of important supplies from China (1). If China were to cut all trade to the U.S. it would be impractical for us to wage war. It would not regain the trade we had lost while also removing any short-term chance at China producing anything at all. The damage to infrastructure alone would be more than sufficient to destroy any future trade potential. Thus, in this case, war would be self-defeating and everyone would lose.
War to gain new resources would also be self-defeating. Unless carefully conducted, a war could have the adverse effect of damaging infrastructure key to the acquisition of a resource, particularly oil.
Another potential cause for war would be some sort of human rights violation abroad. In history, a notable example would be the U.S. involvement in World War Two. Despite the U.S. government’s prior knowledge that the Holocaust was happening it did not serve as the reason we entered the war (2). Morally, war would be justified on grounds of human rights violations; however, I feel that there would need to be more to it. If that were the only reason to go to war I feel that it would not be reason enough to tear apart another nation. That said, a nation that violates human rights should be carefully scrutinized and observed for any other reasons to intervene.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. use war as a means of getting what it wants. If diplomacy cannot resolve the issue, it is not worth the cost of war, in monetary and human terms. I feel that there is nothing in the world now worth taking by force, be it physical or ideological. I say now because at any time some other country could develop some new innovation in science or medicine worth so much that its security would be infinitely valuable. I don’t see that happening at all.
1 http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/china
2http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/02/national/main299399.shtml
What should the Obama administration to in respose to kim jong's death? This is a very unique situation because of North Korea's mysterious nature. I think the Obama admin. should at very least be cautions in the weeks and months to come and ideally use this opprotunity to perhaps attempt negotiations. The country has been closed for so long and been under the iron grip rule of a dictator. If the US, or any other country for that matter, wishes to communicate with the country now it seems would be an appropriate time. The Obama admin. should suggest a conference with the new north korean leader and the united nations and offer aid to the country in an effort to usher in a new public poilicy stance on their part. North korea is known for having a large military as well as nuclear capabilities. There is defenitley reason to be concered with the shift to a dictator, even if from another dictator, especially givin the fact that we do not know much about the new leader or how he may handle foregin policy with the US in particular. Th Obama admin. should be careful while keeping an open mind to potential possibilities in the future.
In answer to the third prompt:
No, I do not think the United States should use its military power to get whatever it wants. These policies tend to wind up unpopular both domestically and with our allies, and they are not as effective as some politicians tend to believe.
The obvious example given of these tendencies is the Vietnam War. This war was started specifically to contain the threat of communism due to the fear that it would spread through Asia in a domino effect (1). At the time, containing communism was America’s primary foreign policy goal. However, we did not achieve our goal in Vietnam and eventually withdrew shamefully and tried to forget the whole thing (2). By the end of the war, 60% of Americans were opposed to it (3). The US also encountered disapproval abroad, including and especially some of our allies, such as Britain (4).
For a more recent example, let’s try the Iraq War. Among the reasons given for our entry into this war was Bush’s claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, but it was later announced that none were found there (5). If our goal was based on an erroneous claim in the first place, I think it’s safe to say we didn’t achieve it. While there was certainly support for the War on Terror early on due to 9/11, support for the war in Iraq in particular actually fell much faster than support for the Vietnam War did (3). Public opinion of the war in Europe was very low as well, with many German citizens going so far to refer to the United States as “a nation of warmongers” (6).
In short, both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War failed to achieve our primary objectives and were viewed with disapproval both at home and abroad. In addition, nuclear technology has raised the question of how and whether wars are even really won anymore. Our recent experiences have demonstrated that war doesn’t help us and is unlikely to help us in the future, so I don’t think that the US should have the use of its military power be its primary strategy for fulfilling its goals, for the simple reason that it doesn’t actually work. I’m not saying there would never be a situation where the United States would need to use military power – simply getting rid of our armed forces would obviously not be a good idea in the current climate, and possibly ever. But in situations like the ones I’ve described above, going to war is demonstrably not a good idea.
1. http://wfps.k12.mt.us/teachers/carmichaelg/vietnam_domino_theory.htm
2. http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index.html
3. http://www.gallup.com/poll/18097/iraq-versus-vietnam-comparison-public-opinion.aspx
4. http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/Wilsonjohnson.htm
5. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/#.Tw-iGvmcySo
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm
What should the Obama administration do in response to the death of Kim Jong Il? Does the new North Korean leadership pose a risk or a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives?
What should the Obama administration do? Wait, at least for a little while. Economically, North Korea is poised to go about “business as usual” (if you could call it that) (1). As for other aspects, including nuclear weapons, that is a little more uncertain. I guess I’ll start with the new leader, Kim Jong-un. Only twenty-seven years old, and given the state of North Korea, it is likely now that he will follow in his father’s footsteps. However, as his older brother, Kim Jong Nam, (who incidentally lost favor with his father for trying to go to Disneyland on a fake passport in 2001) put it to the Japanese media- he has only had two years of training as heir (2). Though his thoughts are certainly overridden with bitterness, it is a little frightening that Kim Jong Il’s successor be so ill-trained. Not that years of experience made Kim Jong Il a fantastic leader or anything. Though he may be new, he’s been learning from his father and been in his favor, so it seems likely he will follow his policies.
New leadership in North Korea may pose a risk, and/or it also may pose a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives. Obviously, that is very vague, but as I said, right now the Obama administration needs to tread carefully, and wait to make any action. I don’t think this specific situation with the passing and new leadership in North Korea is any cause for immediate action by the United States. I think what the United States needs to do is wait for South Korea, and especially China to plan their next move. On Monday, China and South Korea held their first summit since the death of Kim Jong Il (3). The President of China told the President of South Korea that he will work with him and the country to try and achieve peace in Korea. Once the new leadership has settled in, I think China can start working on trying to denuclearize North Korea. Right now, I still say it’s a good idea to wait. Once action by North Korea’s neighboring countries has been taken, I think the United States need not delve right into it. I think that would be risky. The Obama administration can take action, but needs to wait for China and South Korea to do so first.
(1) http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/north-korea-will-go-about-business-usual
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/12/kim-jong-ils-jilted-son-dismisses-ruler-brother-as-symbol-report-says/
(3) http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/china-and-south-korea-hold-first-summit-on-north-korea-after-kim-jong-ils-death-136936153.html
The next thing for the next administration to do concerning foreign policy is to keep watch on North Korea and see how they transition from Kim Jong Il’s death. North Korea has been negotiating with the US in an effort to halt their uranium-enrichment program for food aid from the US (1). Talks have broken down and North Korea’s response was that they want to see the US willingness to establish confidence (1). North Korea is a dangerous country and treats their citizens poorly. Just after Kim Jong Il’s death, they began to punish those citizens who did not display enough sadness (2). This is crazy to think that people could be treated that way and still have love for their country. The US faces a dilemma because I feel like the US wants to help these people, but if they invade then North Korea will use the nuclear power to kill a ton of people. Another thing the next administration should do is to decrease the amount of military personal around the world and don’t worry too much about other countries affairs. The US should focus on its own domestic policy and get its economy under control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/asia/north-korea-opens-door-to-american-food-aid.html?scp=2&sq=north%20korea%20nuclear&st=cse
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/11/north-korea-reportedly-punishing-those-who-didnt-sufficiently-mourn-kim-jong-il/
In this blog post I am going to respond to the third prompt: To what extent should the US go to war to protect its foreign and domestic interests? Do you believe that America should use its military power to get what it wants?
The three main reasons why America has entered into wars in the past are because of a military alliance, for strategic economic reasons (oil), or for altruistic reasons (for example, Rwanda). I think that the United States needs to maintain a much more peaceful/neutral stance on foreign policy than the nation is currently holding. I don’t think that the United States army should become as involved in foreign affairs as it has been in the past. When we agree to help another country in their affairs, it only forces us deeper into debt. Yes, I think it is important to support other countries when asked, but I think that a stronger line needs to be drawn regarding when to say “no”. It is obviously very important to ensure that other countries will reciprocate the level of support that we have demonstrated, but I think this can still be done even if we don’t get involved in wars like Vietnam. The Vietnam War may be an extreme example of the United States involvement in foreign affairs, but it was a very big deal to many Americans. People were upset with how multiple different presidents (Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson) had a part in keeping the US in Vietnam, without having a single achievable goal [1]. The government wanted to combat the influence of China in Southeast Asia [2], but our plan of action in this guerrilla war was incredibly flawed. Not only did it cost America a considerable amount of money, it also affected many families due to the loss of a family member (father, son, uncle, grandfather, etc), or a close friend.
This is another reason why I am against the way that the U.S. seems to just jump into wars. Clearly the government considers the pros and cons of doing so, but it seems as though they always choose wrong. The loss of a loved one affects families everyday who have someone they know involved in the Iraq war [3]. The tragic hit that the victim’s family and friends must endure is something that I don’t think should still be happening. It is no longer necessary for American troops to be stationed in Iraq.
[1] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNprotest.htm
[2] http://history1900s.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/vietnamwar.htm
[3] http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/iraqdeath1000.htm
The death of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il was a complete to surprise the world, leaving the international community in a state of “anxiety” in which much remains unknown. The rest world has remained relatively quiet as North Korea mourns the death of its leader, and waits to see the type of transition the country will be making in the near and far future. Personally, I feel that the United States should take neither an overly aggressive or overly passive stance towards North Korea, but rather wait until more information is known so it can make fully-assessed decisions. Thus far, the United States has remained relatively mum stating that it is “closely monitoring the situation” [1], which I believe is the right course of action (though it would be nice to know what they are thinking from a curiosity standpoint).
Kim Jong Il’s son, Kim Jong Un, was recently been pronounced as the “great successor” of the country [2]. However, much remains unknown about this new leader, which makes it difficult to take any decisive actions at this moment. Kim Jong Un has not been groomed like his father was to run this country, which makes him more vulnerable as he develops his own political positions [2]. Despite the fact that he has already taken key military and party posts, there is still opportunity that the country can move past the oppressive state it has been in over the past several years [3]. It would be in the best interest of the U.S.’s foreign policy to wait and see the direction that Kim Jong Un will take as a leader, before getting involved. It the United States did try to get involved too soon North Korea could view it as America trying to undermine its power and control the country; this would increase tension between the two nations and create new, unwanted problems. This does not mean that the United States should not diligently watch the country to make sure it is not doing anything that would pose a threat to us, any of our allies, or other nations.
On a different note, I think that the United States should have some extra concern regarding North Korea’s apparent continuance of the songun or military-first policy [4]. In accordance with it policy, North Korea has fired off a few missiles as part of an apparent routine test of its technology [4]. These stances have been the cause of much tension between America and North Korea in the past, and if it is continued it will certainly cause more problems. I feel that North Korea is taking these actions at the current moment to show that it is still powerful and just because there is a change in regime doesn’t mean that other countries can make the changes it wants the country to make. The extra uneasiness that these actions have caused are completely justifiable, since the current stances of North Korea are very serious concerns. Despite North Korea telling the world it should “not expect change”, Kim Jong Un has made it known that he’d be more open to listening to other nations and talking with them [5].
I also feel that that the U.S. should conference with its allies, which it has said will happen in the “near future” [1]. We need to make sure that we are on the same page as our allies so we can present a united front in our relations with North Korea in the future. Overall, I feel that there is the chance for great potential in this new regime, however, I am quite unsure the direction that it will head in. There is a tremendous opportunity for North Korea to get away from its negative and oppressive image, and be accepted by many other countries throughout the world; the decision to do so remains within the hands of its leaders. Since so much is unclear and unpredictable at this moment, I definitely feel that the United States should take no immediate actions in regards to North Korea. We are all hopeful that the new regime will surprise us, but ultimately I feel that it will remain much the same for the moment as it takes progressive steps for change.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/world/asia/north-korea-world-reax/index.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/world/asia/kim-jong-ils-death-inspires-anxiety.html?_r=2&scp=9&sq=kim%20jong%20il%20&st=cse
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/world/asia/kim-jong-il-is-dead.html?pagewanted=all
[4] http://news.yahoo.com/official-nkorea-test-fired-short-range-missiles-035343325.html
[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16361378
*What should the Obama administration do in response to the death of Kim Jong Il? Does the new North Korean leadership pose a risk or a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives?
While the death of Kim Jong-il was rather unexpected, unlike various leaders killed in the Arab Spring, it was clear that he was getting up there in years. Eventually, Kim Jong-un would be the one holding the reins. Despite a change in leadership, I don’t believe we should expect anything but the same from North Korea. There is very little information about the favorite son of “Dear Leader” that can be readily confirmed, due to North Korea’s secrecy. Though many cite his schooling in Switzerland as reason for him having better relations with the West than his father, he spent most of his time alone. He frequently went home to North Korea and went out to dinner with the North Korean ambassador [1]. The propaganda machine in this Orwellian country is already combating rumors of his softness with images of Kim Jong-un riding stallions [2] and inspecting tanks [3].
Thus, I don’t believe we should change our course of action until North Korea does something to suggest that anything is actually different. South Korea is optimistically hoping to improve relations with North Korea through talks with Kim Jong-un [4], but the U.S. should treat him as an extension of his father until proven otherwise.
This change in leadership could be a risk, an improvement, or neither. Kim Jong-un is far less knowledgable than his father about military strategy, and might end up taking unwise actions. However, he could prove to be less harsh than his father. Or, he may really be his father’s best son, and just maintain North Korea in the image Kim Jong-il had shaped for it. For now, we don’t truly know.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11388628
[2] http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/8/1326030171980/Kim-Jong-un-rides-a-horse-003.jpg
[3] http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles/Assets/Richmedia/Image2/fo09ja-Page-9-Down-NKOREA.jpg
[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/02/south-korea-president-north-korea
What do you think the next administration (Obama or GOP candidate) should prioritize when it comes to foreign policy?
I believe the next administration should make Iran, and other states attempting to gain nuclear weapons, the foreign policy focus. While troops are still in Afghanistan, the situation has mostly devolved into a bitter stalemate, and an aggressive withdrawal strategy is being put in place (1). The threat of mutually assured destruction has played a part in the uneasy peace among world powers since the second-world-war, but states such as Iran threaten to upset that balance with the production of nuclear weapons. While I don’t advocate for a full-scale invasion of Iran, I do support the covert war that Israel (and probably the US) have been waging for several years now (2). This has caused several significant setbacks, and while it may not bring the Iranian nuclear process to a grinding halt, it certainly makes it less viable from the perspective of the Iranians. “Sabotage and assassination is the way to go, if you can do it,” he said. “It doesn’t provoke a nationalist reaction in Iran, which could strengthen the regime. And it allows Iran to climb down if it decides the cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon is too high” (2). While some argue that it is “unfair” for the US to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear capability, I feel it is certainly within the US’s right, nay, responsibility as the foremost power in the world, to ensure that she and her allies are protected. Nuclear weapons are simply too destructive, and having them accessible to someone as reckless and careless as Ahmadinejad is too risky. An end to Irans nuclear program might bring about two things. One, an end to the posturing related to the Strait of Hormuz. Realistically, if the US wants it open, it WILL stay open. The classic Trusinksiy-approved strategy of “bomb everything even slightly military-related within 100 miles” will take care of that. Second, Iran’s nuclear program, abd our ability to prevent it, is represenative of how this battle will play out going forward. If Iran becomes nuclear capable, what's to stop other nations such as Pakistan or India from doing the same thing. Even more troubling is the threat of terrorist groups getting ahold of the dreaded "dirty bomb." if the US and her allies can stop the flow of information and supplies to Iran, they could presumably do it elsewhere as well.
Sources:
1. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-afghanistan-20120113,0,4253051.story
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-adversaries-said-to-step-up-covert-actions.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
Personally I feel that the Obama administration should focus on decreasing the trade deficit with China and other manufacturing nations. Our country's manufacturing sector has been on the decline for a number of decades now (1), and with it has gone many of the manufacturing jobs. Jobs as these are essential for maintaining the income levels of the upper-lower class and the middle class. Without a college education, people used to have the option of either a manufacturing job or a service industry occupation. With the former rapidly disappearing, income in the aforementioned classes has fallen and steady jobs have been harder to come by. The reason China is involved in this situation is their cheap exports have outcompeted domestic products and have forced USA manufacturers to cut costs and lay off workers (2).
By subsidizing manufacturers rather than large, non-manufacturing corporations, Obama could help bring back manufacturing jobs to the US. Reducing the trade deficit is essentially the same as decreasing our reliance on China and increasing domestic jobs.
(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-13/u-s-trade-deficit-widened-more-than-forecast-to-47-8-billion.html
(2)http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/us-china-trade.htm
I am clearly no expert on foreign policy, but here is what is happening today and some things I think American leaders need to keep in mind in creating foreign policy. America used to be one of the biggest influences on the world. America used to be able to stand up to countries as a power nation and sway country decisions. I now think that is dwindling due to the war in Iran. “Since the US completed its withdrawal from Iraq, it has become apparent that Washington’s appetite to confront Iran’s regional influence is dwindling." (3) A big thing in the news right now is Iran’s increase in their nuclear power. “Iran is now just a year or so away from having enough such material for a nuclear bomb, a former head of UN nuclear inspections said. (1)” I think this proves that America isn’t doing enough as an influence around the world. Influence plays a big part in world politics. “Over the past decade, China has transformed from being a regional power, where its main concerns are to defend its borders in a largely inhospitable environment, to a global power with interests extending throughout the world particularly in pursuit for energy supplies.” China is one of our biggest competitors and Obama should make foreign policy that will keep up with the increasing power of other countries. We see how power of money and food play a role in North Korea. “Today after North Korean’s leader’s death pledges to decrease nuclear power if America agrees to send them food. “North Korea indicated on Wednesday that it was open to further negotiations with the United States, which it said demanded a halt of its uranium-enrichment program in return for food aid before the death of Kim Jong-il last month.” (4).They need to do what we want in order to survive basically. I think American needs to lead as a mother of the other countries. Obama and the administration need to establish more of a foreign policy. One thing I think would improve our policy is better education for kids. Education is the start to better technology and politics. “In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region”, Clinton explained.”(3). One good thing that America is doing is getting to with other countries and making a plan to put pressure on Iran’s oil industry to slow down Iran’s new nuclear programs (2). Japan imports 10% of its oil from Iran, but Azumi said his nation will begin "reducing this 10% share as soon as possible in a planned manner." (2). Anything to slow down Irans research or development in nuclear power the better, at least until we plan how to control the situation.
(1) http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=253338
(2) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/01/iranian-oil-embargo-japan-and-south-korean-reliance-on-imported-oil.html
(3) http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/adapting-to-us-foreign-policy-changes-1.965102
(4)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/asia/north-korea-opens-door-to-american-food-aid.html?_r=1
What should the Obama administration do in response to the death of Kim Jong Il? Does the new North Korean leadership pose a risk or a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives?
I think that in regards to a country as unstable as North Korea our official policy should be just watch and see what happens. I’m not saying we just sit around until they attack us, no that are not what I mean. I think that we should let Korea start any type of conflict, unless of course they try to bomb us or something. For the whole watching to see if they're going to bomb us or attack us in some way I think we should leave that up to the boys and ladies in the FBI or CIA, which ever one is trained to deal with those types of situations. Maybe its the army, if you respond to me you could look that up. But back to the point, as of right now the leadership in Korea is young and we don't know what it’s going to be like. However there are those who say that Kim Jong Un is action much like his grandfather (1). His grandfather was much more into building the military then Kim Jong II, which isn’t exactly good news for us (1). Still I say that the best thing for the Obama administration is just to leave Korea alone, because North Korea doesn’t like the US and doesn’t want us to bother them. We have talked with the leaders over there about food assistance, which I do believe is a good thing to be doing (2). While we have had several talks with North Korea about making sure the food gets to the people and not the military. So just personally I feel there are places that need food just as much and we can make sure the right people get the food. As well we could definitely find a place to give aid to that doesn’t hate us. North Korea is very anti USA (3). So I don’t really like the idea of aiding a country like that. Please understand, its not that I don’t know that the people in North Korea have been brainwashed to hate/mistrust America (4). I also understand that people there are malnourished, but there are people like that everywhere who also need help.
I digress; Obama should remain cordial with North Korea, but be wary off this new leadership and realize that this is not a new opportunity for America’s foreign relations with North Korea. We as two countries with very different economic policy will just never get along.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/07/kim-jong-un_n_1191337.html?ref=world
2. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/20/first-u-s-contact-with-north-korea-since-dictators-death/
3. http://calitreview.com/875
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/20/kim-jong-il-brainwashed-north-koreans
Quick note: This is going to be an opinion article. I understand that the nuances of public policy make my suggestion nigh impossible, but that does not mean I think its prioritization should be mitigated in any way.
I have an intense passion for space, and everything related to it. As such, the formation of an international space agency is the most important possible direction in which we need to head. Such directions have many potential benefits. Perhaps the most easily recognizable is the fact that in order to establish such an administration, interactions with other countries around the globe must be in perfect working order. It would further cement relations with any nations we have rocky relationships with, and would effectively, but slowly, bring around a more worldwide form of government to assist countries in need, and to coordinate for greater efficiency.
The reason why an international agency needs to be created is manifold. Perhaps the most persuasive is the distribution of costs. There is no need to mince words: space is expensive. It is incredibly valuable, but exorbitantly priced. If every nation contributed to the program with a percentage of their GDP, it would allow richer nations to pay what they can afford, and for smaller ones to still make their contributions. Incentives would be established for entering into the administration as a country, such as a provision which protected new technology, capital, and other benefits, from country’s who do not contribute financially. This would bring about the aforementioned unity of the planet, and create cheaper and more easily accessible innovations.
The final frontier has again and again proven that it drives the technology of the world forward, improving the lives of everyone. Anything from cordless tools to smoke detectors were pioneered and engineered to a level efficient for consumption by innovations for space (1). Modern water filtration systems even owe their technology to NASA, developing ways to keep astronauts water supply clean (2). What could possibly be a better example for an incentive for space, then new ways to bring water to people? Aside from any other possible benefits, the innovation alone produced by NASA is worth the price of admission.
I could continue to rant about all of the benefits of space travel until your ears fell off and walked away by themselves, but I will spare you the trouble. Instead, I will sign off with a quote by Stephen Hawking, a man who has my back 100% of the way.
I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars.
Stephen Hawking
Good luck humanity, the Universe is waiting.
(1) http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-04/living/nasa.everyday_1_detectors-tires-nasa?_s=PM:LIVING
(2) http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/physics-concepts-and-definitions/ten-nasa-inventions10.htm
In this day and age, contrary to decades past, I believe that the United States should, by all means, go to war to defend its interests at home and abroad. I feel that any direct threat to the safety of Americans is unquestionably worthy of war. Other than that what causes a war to be needed? Trade? Strategic resources? Human Rights? All of these are valid causes for sure, but to what extent is military conflict necessary?
Lack of trade COULD be a credible reason to go to war. How urgent the situation is could be intensified only if trade is extremely essential to the nation’s economic welfare. For example, many people have stated that our country would be in an extremely unfortunate state if China were to discontinue trading with us. The United States does import a hefty amount of our essential supplies from China, as reported by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (1). If China did decide to discontinue trade with our country, it would be nonsensical to engage the Chinese in a war. A war wouldn’t recover any capital our country had lost, also China may not manufacture any products at all during conflict. The detriment to infrastructure would overcompensate in destruction to any future business relationships. Conducting a simply in order to gain new resources would not be the smartest idea. The war would have to be micromanaged in order to avoid the disadvantageous effects of harming and infrastructure that is essential to the obtainment of resources. Human rights is always included in the lists of potential catalysts for U.S. involvement in a war. For example, the Holocaust was one of the justifiable causes for American involvement in World War Two. Our government did know about the Holocaust precious to our involvement, it just was not the sole reason for entering the war (2). On a moral, humanistic level, war is vindicated if caused by humans rights violation. Personally, I believe that human rights violations is an extremely valid reason to go to war. I also believe that human rights violations should not be the solitary reason for going to war. If a nation is suspected of a human rights violation, our country should keep that nation under surveillance of some sort until we can find another reason to involve ourselves. I believe that military conflict is necessary to some extent. It is necessary to remedy conflicts that are morally wrong, such as a genocide or an iniquitous dictatorship. Military conflict should not be used to resolve a trivial issue or an issue that could be smoothed over by diplomacy. Our country must be careful and realize that not every situation needs to be settled with military force.
1 http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/china 2http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/02/national/main299399.shtml
I believe that the situation in North Korea presents a new opportunity for the United States to break up one of the cruelest and most oppressive regimes in history. In light of the most recent developments on the Korean peninsula, it is my belief that the new Korean leadership is more open to diplomacy that previously believed. For example, The North Koreans have opened up to talks with the South Koreans in regards to food aid. I believe this offers us some insight on two different levels. First, it shows that the North Koreans are open to negotiations and are willing to instigate them. Second, it demonstrates on some basic level that the new leadership will take steps to solve the hunger/ starvation problem in the country. Additionally, history shows us that times of succession are often the best times to engage a dictatorship in negotiations. The US needs to act fast to use either hard or soft power to convince Kim Jong Un that the time is right for a change of governing style. Skeptics will point out that the government is still composed mostly of friends and family loyal to the Kim family. While that may be true, insider analysis shows us that it is still Jong Un that calls that shots. Unlike in the US, the leader does not capitulate to his advisors. The real key for change lies with the third son of Kim Jong Il, whom many believe to be ill experienced to lead his nation. If the US acts swiftly, he should become flustered and give in to demands to democratize North Korea. I think that concerns over a bloody succession are ill founded. First, enough time has passed that a coup would be unlikely and second, Kim Jong Il set up his succession to avoid such a thing. Lastly, I think it is important that the US take action. Waiting to see what the North Koreans will do invites more of the same behavior. Swift action on the other hand can force the North Koreans to do something, and with the right tools that can be to capitulate to US demands.
*What should the Obama administration do in response to the death of Kim Jong Il? Does the new North Korean leadership pose a risk or a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives?
To be honest, I don’t really think risk of a North Korean attack could be significantly higher than under the reign of Kin Jong Il. Clearly their North Korea’s foreign policies were already extremely isolationist while still being confrontational. They have at least three nuclear weapons (which is not a comparatively large number, but still could be very scary if used in a certain way) and have been unpredictable for quite some time. We know that North Korea sank a South Korean ship in April of 2010. (1) I also think the fact that there was not a counterstrike from South Korea shows that while there was obviously a threat and will continue to be from North Korea, there is more stability in the region than we give it credit for. Caution would be advisable for the Obama administration though, because we don’t really know what is going on in North Korea, ever. The United States should maintain committed to South Korea, because I think any sudden changes would be unwise and would also alienate those we do call allies. There is a risk that Kim Jong-Un would be MORE willing to strike, because he is trying to prove himself a fit leader for his country and military. (2) The Obama administration has been ridiculously cautious about the whole situation, because they have been trying to not start anything with North Korea or its new leader. MSNBC said “The kid-gloves treatment accorded to the North's youthful new leader, Kim's twenty-something son Kim Jong Un, has attracted criticism from some who see this is a moment to make a forceful case for dramatic reform and regime change.” There are certainly those that think this would have been an opportunity to make serious changes in our relationship with North Korea and perhaps take advantage of the weakness in the regime. This argument seems logical to me, but also too risky to ever really happen. I’m not sure what the United States could really do to try to control North Korea or make any sustainable changes that wouldn’t just increase tensions. There is too much of an infrastructure built up in North Korea as it is for us to overtake them with any kind of reasonable policy. In the end, I guess I don’t have a great answer, but there probably isn’t one. That is also probably the reason why Obama’s administration has had a similar reaction to the situation, even though it seems very dramatic and significant.
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/north-korea-cheonan-sinking-torpedo
2. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1123/North-Korean-attack-What-are-US-options-for-response
3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45787168/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/caution-mutes-us-response-north-korea/#.TxebOOWZI5s
This comment has been removed by the author.
*What should the Obama administration do in response to the death of Kim Jong Il? Does the new North Korean leadership pose a risk or a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives?
Obviously, the new situation in North Korea is one that will require extraordinary care to be dealt with. As of yet, it is still unclear as to the extent that policies may change under the new leader [1]. There is evidence that Kim Jong-un, like his father, will lead a government focused on the military, and will continue to carry out his fathers policies [1]. However, some wonder about Kim Jong-un’s “ability to ‘manage the military and elites who keep the Kim family in power,’ another U.S. official said” [2]. On the other hand, many are convinced that North Korea is relatively stable right now [1], which for that geographic area is certainly promising.
For the time being, I think that the Obama administration should play a very cautious role, if any, in dealings with North Korea. The best thing to do right now is wait. Before Kim Jong Il died, “the US and the North appeared close to a deal on food aid” and “The North was expected to suspend uranium enrichment” [3]. This was very promising, and I believe that the US has a hope to revive such relations, and even make considerable progress. But if the US makes the mistake of intervening too early, it could risk offense and distrust, something the US does not want from a country with such significant nuclear capabilities.
Because North Korea is in such bad economic shape, I doubt it will be long before North Korea explores again the possibility of US aid—or at least makes their new policies clear. I believe that the new North Korean leadership poses a new opportunity for US foreign policy initiatives, but eery opportunity comes with a risk. If nothing else, the US should proceed with extreme caution in talking through its anti-nuclear proliferation with the new leadership. Like most Americans though, I do hope for a future in which North Korea and the US find a way to establish honest and respectful diplomatic relations—and a way to increase the standard of living for the North Korean people who continue to live lives of economic hardship.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16607156
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/death-of-kim-jong-il-dims-hope-for-us-talks/2011/12/19/gIQAoIKl4O_story.html
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/us-seeks-new-chapter-in-relations-with-north-korea/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home