How would you describe your foreign policy philosophy? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14915701
Dave wrote:Realpolitik

[1] The purpose of our foreign policy should simply be to maximize our security, power, and wealth.

[2] The USA has pursued a foreign policy directly opposite of those aims since the mid-1930s.

[3] As I've grown older I've become very skeptical of military aggression, as even if our assaults on foreign countries were carried out in the national interest (they're not) the theoretical benefits are almost never worth the cost.


Allow me some remarks:

[1] all these purposes are in some kind compulsory for a government of a free state. It is worth to note that those can only be achieved by carefully balancing them in a international concert.

[2] if your posit was accurate, USA would be a very poor country with little influence. Quite the opposite is reality.
Nevertheless, there are more people in misery than in other developed countries.
But that is a consequence of internal politics and not a lack of successful foreign policy.

[3] That is very true.
Dress rehearsal for war is usually armed diplomacy that equals blackmail, and often is a fertilizer for devastating conflicts to come.

Greets hartmut
#15029951
mikema63 wrote:What foreign policy philosophy do you subscribe to and how would you describe it?


I support an agricultural cooperative based upon the NAFTA charter with room at the table for Central American countries. I think that the pursuance of regional manufacturing chains is essential to the well-being of the United States as is an infrastructure that can facilitate the transition and offset of petroleum based plastic and timber products to those that are based in cellulose from crops such as corn and hemp. I also support intervention in Venezuela and increasing trade and infrastructure agreements with countries in the Western Hemisphere.

I am also of the belief that the US dollar as a reserve currency is on borrowed time and once this arrangement is over there will neither be the economic luxury nor the demand for US presence in the Middle East or Asia. As it is this nation has spent trillions of dollars over there in the past 30+ years and doesn't have much to show for it.
#15104747
Well, for Greece, the best foreign policy is keep acting like German's bitch until the situations are set up for a swift and decisive war against Turkey(Israeli war of 1967style) , with the new industries, urban centers and peoples that will have been integrated into Greece, after a series of drastic internal reforms mostly to the government system. Depending on the situation we would either stand our ground and develop more, either keep on securing important defensive points in the balkans.
By then Greece will finally be completely independent from any foreign state and will be able to define its own policies and future and finally stability and prosperity will be brought to the anatolian and balkan people.

Or

Keep being German bitch and keep helping them with their struggle against America. Ending up a part of the future European Union (Franco German hegemony of course ) and securing a seat for my state in the decision making table alongside the French and Germans.

I'd characterise my policies rather extremely ambitious, honestly really risky, aggressive but at the same time passive and completely dependent on the situations of the period. Ther eis no particular policy that responds to all situations though, we have to adapt if we want to climb high.
#15162888
Dave wrote:
Realpolitik

The purpose of our foreign policy should simply be to maximize our security, power, and wealth.

The USA has pursued a foreign policy directly opposite of those aims since the mid-1930s.

As I've grown older I've become very skeptical of military aggression, as even if our assaults on foreign countries were carried out in the national interest (they're not) the theoretical benefits are almost never worth the cost.



Realpolitik uses the military a lot.

If you look where we've been successful, like the Marshall Plan, that's the opposite of Realpolitik.

We spent a lot of money rebuilding Europe, and building relationships with our former enemies. Over the long run, that has benefited us enormously. Sometimes that's called Soft Power.

Realpolitik carries the seeds of failure, of which we have had many.
#15162943
hartmut wrote:First point should be peace, by what means ever.
As it's absence is growingly risky in modern times of accelerating technical potential for killing human fellow members .
(Even a complete wipe out is possible since about 50 years, … a short time after two unprecedented World Wars.)

Secondly we should enhance UN, not neglecting her authority, but developing that permanent global interchange of interests, which could be crucial in upcoming time.

A bad thing to do, would be a elusive belligerent policy of national strength by a major power.

About that.




Your first point, you state, is peace, by whatever means. It is a noble concept, but in my opinion fraught with problems; as the devil is always in the details. Do we know in advance what means, policies, or methods can assure peace, lead to peace, or extend peace to places where there is none? The human experience has been, time after time, a policy is believed to guarantee, if pursued vigorously enough, to bringing about peace in a region in conflict; only, years or decades down the road, after much expenditure in lives and expenses, to arrive at the realisation that it was all for naught. Peace is a tricky business, involving many parts and actors. Some actors refuse to play ball, what then is "whatever means" when it comes to dealing with chronic recalcitrant disturbers of the peace?

The UN, in my opinion, is a dream. It is actually a sham. What we really have is a Pax Americana. The UN is just something dressed up to mask the inescapable reality that it is brute American force that guarantees the imperfect peace we enjoy. Take America out of the UN; or to be more accurate, as I am not sure who can kick America out of the UN, lets say the US quites the UN, what remains? It goes the way of the League of Nations
#15162951
My foreign policy if I were somebody in power for the United States would be a policy of having a strong military while preventing the costs of war. Having a strong military is essential for deterrence and the prevention of the astronomical costs of war. However, our military should not be used for misguided adventurism. Military might should only be used as an absolute last resort and only used to protect only our vital interests. Another aspect of our foreign policy I would want is a policy of multilateralism if military might is required as an absolute last resort to safeguard our vital interests.

Multilateralism where we receive assistance from our allies helps to spread the costs of war to our allies instead of us shouldering the costs all alone. That of course means, we will be required to assist our allies if they need protection or help from our military in return, but I would insist on our allies to only use military might as only an absolute last resort and only when it is truly necessary. Part of our vital interests is safeguarding our commitments to our allies so they will be there for us too. I would want allies who understand the importance of preventing the costs of war and view the use of military might as only an absolute last resort and only when vital interests are at stake.
#15162981
Politics_Observer wrote:My foreign policy if I were somebody in power for the United States would be a policy of having a strong military while preventing the costs of war. Having a strong military is essential for deterrence and the prevention of the astronomical costs of war. However, our military should not be used for misguided adventurism. Military might should only be used as an absolute last resort and only used to protect only our vital interests. Another aspect of our foreign policy I would want is a policy of multilateralism if military might is required as an absolute last resort to safeguard our vital interests.

Multilateralism where we receive assistance from our allies helps to spread the costs of war to our allies instead of us shouldering the costs all alone. That of course means, we will be required to assist our allies if they need protection or help from our military in return, but I would insist on our allies to only use military might as only an absolute last resort and only when it is truly necessary. Part of our vital interests is safeguarding our commitments to our allies so they will be there for us too. I would want allies who understand the importance of preventing the costs of war and view the use of military might as only an absolute last resort and only when vital interests are at stake.



Well put. I cannot agree with you more. History proves that as well. The most successful empires in the past operated on a judicious use of force and reliance on coalitions and partners. England is a good example of that; she never had like a humongous army, but used what she had judiciously and on the Navy; her global acquisitions were thanks to use of allies
#15162994
@Juin

You mention it's conquor or be conquored. War is very much like that. It's either fight or die, kill or be killed and their are only victors and losers in a war zone. I know which side I want to be on when it comes to the victors and losers if I'm in a war zone. And in real life, there is only one podium to celebrate those who win. There is no podium for second place. Second place is the first loser. Especially in war. It is extreme and unforgiving. That's why soldiers have to train hard. And really, nobody really wins. It's better to resolve things peacefully when possible.
#15162999
Another aspect when it comes to the profession of arms that applies to life outside of the profession of arms is the notion of "pay now or pay later." Train hard now and pay the price training hard now, or pay the price later on if you didn't train hard and go into combat. And it's that way with a lot of things in life outside of the Army. For example, a nation which fails to invest in a strong military is more likely to fail to deter adversaries which results in a costly and expensive war.
#15183171
Politics_Observer wrote:My foreign policy if I were somebody in power for the United States would be a policy of having a strong military while preventing the costs of war. Having a strong military is essential for deterrence and the prevention of the astronomical costs of war. However, our military should not be used for misguided adventurism. Military might should only be used as an absolute last resort and only used to protect only our vital interests. Another aspect of our foreign policy I would want is a policy of multilateralism if military might is required as an absolute last resort to safeguard our vital interests.

Multilateralism where we receive assistance from our allies helps to spread the costs of war to our allies instead of us shouldering the costs all alone. That of course means, we will be required to assist our allies if they need protection or help from our military in return, but I would insist on our allies to only use military might as only an absolute last resort and only when it is truly necessary. Part of our vital interests is safeguarding our commitments to our allies so they will be there for us too. I would want allies who understand the importance of preventing the costs of war and view the use of military might as only an absolute last resort and only when vital interests are at stake.


We need better communiation between nations, even those we disagree with and even those which aren't democracies, if only for the sake of global peace.

Detente was a good policy. It didn't end the Cold War but it seemed to reduce the intensity of superpower rivalry. Today we have no equivalent policy and East-West relations are even worse than they were in the Cold War.

The zero sum game approach needs to end. Life is not a zero sum game.
#15183175
Political Interest wrote:The zero sum game approach needs to end. Life is not a zero sum game.


Tell that to China, not the United States.

If anything, the voters of United States made a pretty big "compromise" by electing a team who probably have less willingness to stop China in the way I think necessary (to save the people in concern).

But as I have said elsewhere, I should not have been surprised or even bitter for this. I should, instead, really admit that fact that my life is just like any other lives -- disposable.
#15183180
@Political Interest

I agree, the major powers need better lines of communication. The Biden administration here in the U.S. has been trying to open lines of communications with the Chinese much like we did with the Soviets during the Cold War. However, the Chinese haven't been as receptive as the Soviets were. I think part of this reason is because the Chinese never really came close to the reality of a nuclear confrontation like the U.S. and Soviets did during the Cold War with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It could also be "Asian pride" but this sort of pride is very dangerous when nuclear weapons become involved and could quite literally lead to the end of all of mankind globally.

I think the current Chinese political leadership might under-estimate this reality and how dangerous that really is. They should be willing to open lines of communication with the U.S. I think some political leaders under-estimate just how dangerous a war is and how it can quickly spiral out of control. The survivors would look back on it all, if we had any survivors, and ask "How could we have been SOOO STUPID!?" Another part of my foreign policy philosophy is also achieving your foreign policy goals all while preventing war and astronomical costs of wars. The Sun Tzu maxim of "To win without fighting is the acme of skill."
#15183185
Politics_Observer wrote:It could also be "Asian pride" but this sort of pride is very dangerous when nuclear weapons become involved and could quite literally lead to the end of all of mankind globally.

I think the current Chinese political leadership might under-estimate this reality and how dangerous that really is.


The problem is exactly that they don't FUCKING care.

Although admittedly I also think if justice is to be served the "no survivor scenario" is very probable. In some sense it might be God's will to reset the world without human involvement, and the best we could do would be ask in front of Him why He would let / make that happen.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

the agreement was signed in September 1952, an[…]

The NDP grabbed a few seats, at the expense of all[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

Yes, and 100 years ago, it was thousands. And ma[…]

https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/key-fact[…]