The following blog post is excerpted from an essay by George Weigel in First Things of August/September 2010.
United States foreign policy has oscillated between two poles. One pole is the Realpolitik, self-interested policies of Theodore Roosevelt and a liberal, idealistic, interest in the welfare of the world’s people in general. In other words, it has varied between our interest and our purposes in the world. Our Realpolitik presidents have been Theodore Roosevelt, Harding, early Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush. Presidents committed to the welfare of the international community have been Wilson, later FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Our policies in foreign affairs have varied with the situations and the philosophical bent of our leaders, and American foreign policy has moved according to these forces.
Whatever we, Americans, have done in the past 110 years, has been good or bad, according to one’s values and outlook. But Winston Churchill has said that Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else.
We find ourselves caught, however, in a clash of which is the moral and the safest thing to do—the thing that will help the world’s people and that will secure American safety and prosperity.
On the Right side of the argument is the Protestant moralistic viewpoint that attempts to reduce international relationships to questions resolved by the Sermon on the Mount. On the other side is the camp that attempts to resolve all moral and policy questions on the basis of human reasoning in view of the situations on the ground at the moment. Neither viewpoint seems capable of resolving the problems of the world.
What seems to be needed in this conundrum of values is a combination of common sense and a good dose of Christian moral thinking, applied to situations as they arise. But it is patently evident that neither approach will do as an answer in itself. It would be nice if we could answer all our questions of foreign policy by referring to the pages of the Bible; but it seems hardly possible that one could deal effectively with such tyrants as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein by turning the other cheek. Unfortunately, this dilemma will not be resolved; but we need leaders who will not ignore one pole of the argument in favor of the other.
The New Left in American politics sees all of the problems in foreign policy as being due to personal selfishness and self-interest on the part of the American people; and they would like to apologize to all the world for the bad things the United States has stood for; they decline to defend human rights activists in Russia, China, and Iran; and they turn their backs on our allies and reinforce the activities of our enemies. This is the message of the Obama administration; and it absolutely will not work. I am hoping that future administrations will correct this imbalance of thinking and bring a semblance of common sense back into American policy.
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Immigration Reform, A Colorado Perspective
A recent poll of voter attitudes toward immigration reform in Colorado reported by the Wall Street Journal today indicates that 61% of Colorado voters favor an Arizona-type immigration law. Non-tax paying immigrants who are a drain on our social services, our emergency rooms, and our prisons are overrunning our state. This kind of social stress cannot be allowed to escalate. On the other hand, these poor people cannot get jobs to support their families, and they are having stress over that problem, personally. Their situations are very sad; and we owe it to them to help them as any Christian should be able to understand. As a worker in this population of immigrants, it is obvious to me that there is a triad of problems that absolutely prevent employment, i.e., no immigration papers, no transportation, and no ability to speak English—these three things often occur together; and they completely block any attempt to obtain employment.
Mexicans have been coming into this area of America for centuries—even before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they have considered this area their property. Unfortunately, the area of arable land in Mexico is not sufficient to produce food adequate for the burgeoning population of that country. What arable land they have is often used for cash crops such as roses (especially in the Cuernavaca area southwest of Mexico City). Mexican jobs are scarce, and crime is rampant. Can any of us blame Mexicans for trying to escape such living conditions?
The economics of the situation indicates that southwestern farmers need cheap farm labor to handle their crops. It is also a fact that Mexican and Central American laborers send $15-20 billion back home each year in remittances to their relatives.
It seems to me, that the answer to this immigration dilemma faced by our society today would be to build an impermeable fence across the Mexican border and patrol it effectively to prevent illegal entry into the United States. Then, we should establish a legal temporary immigration program to allow a certain number of Mexicans into the country to work in needed jobs, mostly in agriculture and allow them to send however much money they wish to send back to Mexico. The next step would be to severely penalize anyone who hires illegals without a permit. And, lastly, we should subtract however much money the legal workers send home from $20 billion and give that money to Mexico for agricultural and educational use—of course, that money given to Mexico should be closely supervised and administrated by American managers, because the rampant corruption in Mexico would prevent effective and efficient use of the money if given to Mexican administrators.
Mexicans have been coming into this area of America for centuries—even before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they have considered this area their property. Unfortunately, the area of arable land in Mexico is not sufficient to produce food adequate for the burgeoning population of that country. What arable land they have is often used for cash crops such as roses (especially in the Cuernavaca area southwest of Mexico City). Mexican jobs are scarce, and crime is rampant. Can any of us blame Mexicans for trying to escape such living conditions?
The economics of the situation indicates that southwestern farmers need cheap farm labor to handle their crops. It is also a fact that Mexican and Central American laborers send $15-20 billion back home each year in remittances to their relatives.
It seems to me, that the answer to this immigration dilemma faced by our society today would be to build an impermeable fence across the Mexican border and patrol it effectively to prevent illegal entry into the United States. Then, we should establish a legal temporary immigration program to allow a certain number of Mexicans into the country to work in needed jobs, mostly in agriculture and allow them to send however much money they wish to send back to Mexico. The next step would be to severely penalize anyone who hires illegals without a permit. And, lastly, we should subtract however much money the legal workers send home from $20 billion and give that money to Mexico for agricultural and educational use—of course, that money given to Mexico should be closely supervised and administrated by American managers, because the rampant corruption in Mexico would prevent effective and efficient use of the money if given to Mexican administrators.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Look At Both Sides of All Issues
Most of us tend to read only things with which we already agree. Liberals read the New York Times; and conservatives read the Wall Street Journal. How can we expect to grow in understanding if we continue doing that?
An editorial by James P. Rubin in the Wall Street Journal dated 14 June 2010 presented both sides of the controversy over President Obama’s foreign policies, however. Rubin was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.
He pointed out that the Republican attitude toward the Obama foreign policies is that they see him as “an unreliable friend (of our allies), and a faint-hearted adversary (to our enemies). U.S. allies in Europe no longer treasure their ties to the United States. Turkey defies us without paying a price. China’s leaders question our fortitude. Iran’s nuclear weapons program continues unchecked.” And, I would add, Russia extracts a weapons reduction agreement from us without an equal reduction in their arms stores and both Russia and China continue trading in oil and arms with Iran over our weak, only verbal, arguments.
On the other hand, Mr. Rubin claims that Mr. Obama’s administration has “restored strained alliances and friendships around the world while weakening the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.” He has restored “respect for international rules on prisoners and acceptance of responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from a lonely superpower often seen as a threat to international order back to an indispensable leader in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”
I have a hard time buying Mr. Rubin’s attitude, especially in his praise for the good relations built up in Europe. I feel sure that the emotions felt in The Czech Republic and in Poland by Obama’s decision to quit the construction of the missile defense shield there have not endeared those Eastern European peoples to the United States.
Never the less, I think that we all should try to look at both sides of all issues before we jump to any conclusions.
An editorial by James P. Rubin in the Wall Street Journal dated 14 June 2010 presented both sides of the controversy over President Obama’s foreign policies, however. Rubin was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.
He pointed out that the Republican attitude toward the Obama foreign policies is that they see him as “an unreliable friend (of our allies), and a faint-hearted adversary (to our enemies). U.S. allies in Europe no longer treasure their ties to the United States. Turkey defies us without paying a price. China’s leaders question our fortitude. Iran’s nuclear weapons program continues unchecked.” And, I would add, Russia extracts a weapons reduction agreement from us without an equal reduction in their arms stores and both Russia and China continue trading in oil and arms with Iran over our weak, only verbal, arguments.
On the other hand, Mr. Rubin claims that Mr. Obama’s administration has “restored strained alliances and friendships around the world while weakening the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.” He has restored “respect for international rules on prisoners and acceptance of responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from a lonely superpower often seen as a threat to international order back to an indispensable leader in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”
I have a hard time buying Mr. Rubin’s attitude, especially in his praise for the good relations built up in Europe. I feel sure that the emotions felt in The Czech Republic and in Poland by Obama’s decision to quit the construction of the missile defense shield there have not endeared those Eastern European peoples to the United States.
Never the less, I think that we all should try to look at both sides of all issues before we jump to any conclusions.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Against Whom are We Competing—the Muslims??
There seems to be a great fear among Western peoples that we are soon to be over-run by hoards of Muslims whose civilization is more vital and powerful than ours in some ways. Let’s look at that idea for a moment.
There are nearly a billion and a half Muslims in the world, but their footprint on world events is small. Computation and communication technology has changed many things in the world; but the Islamic world has lagged far behind in developing that kind of technology.
According to a World Bank estimate, the total exports of the Arab world other than fossil fuels amount to less than those of Finland, a country of five million inhabitants. Not one scientific discovery of note, innovative firm of international importance, or contribution to universal culture has come from the Muslim world in the past century. In 2008, only 133 patents were filed in Muslim-majority lands, about a tenth of the number in Israel, while the Israeli total exceeded that of India, Russia, and Singapore combined.
But what about the population decrease that many have noted in Western countries due to falling fertility and birth rates? That is all true, and it portends trouble for the countries involved—there are soon to be too few wage earners and tax payers to pay for the burgeoning numbers of elderly and retired persons. Will this not cause the West to succumb to Muslim population expansion? While it is true that Western countries are experiencing dropping birth rates, the birth rates of the Muslim countries are falling even faster. Muslim countries still have a higher birth rate than most Western countries, but their birth rates are falling at a faster rate. Iran is the most extreme case in the Islamic world with the fastest drop in births; but Turkey and Algeria are not far behind.
America’s fear of the Muslim world may be ill founded. The Soviet Union, which liberal thinkers thought was invincible, fell before the economic and cultural power of the United States under Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, America has elected a President who has no faith in the American system nor in the strength of our country. He seems bent on apologizing to the Muslims; and his obvious deep sentimental attachment to the Muslim world is plain to see. The only thing we have to fear from the Muslims is our own fear, itself. We need to stand up and proclaim the truth that we have the character and the strength to lead this world into a veritable principle that individual freedom and enterprise can bring about great blessings to all peoples.
I am reminded of the beginning of the Reagan administration. America had been humiliated for months by the tiny regime of Libya, which was in the business of blowing up passenger planes over the Mediterranean. President Carter had faced that problem by sitting in his office and wringing his hands. When Ronald Reagan came to office, he sent one or two fighter bombers over Libya, dropped a bomb on the factory producing explosives in Libya, and the whole problem ceased. We need another Ronald Reagan in the White House!!
Parts of this post were excerpted from First Things, the Morality of Self-Interest, June 2010.
There are nearly a billion and a half Muslims in the world, but their footprint on world events is small. Computation and communication technology has changed many things in the world; but the Islamic world has lagged far behind in developing that kind of technology.
According to a World Bank estimate, the total exports of the Arab world other than fossil fuels amount to less than those of Finland, a country of five million inhabitants. Not one scientific discovery of note, innovative firm of international importance, or contribution to universal culture has come from the Muslim world in the past century. In 2008, only 133 patents were filed in Muslim-majority lands, about a tenth of the number in Israel, while the Israeli total exceeded that of India, Russia, and Singapore combined.
But what about the population decrease that many have noted in Western countries due to falling fertility and birth rates? That is all true, and it portends trouble for the countries involved—there are soon to be too few wage earners and tax payers to pay for the burgeoning numbers of elderly and retired persons. Will this not cause the West to succumb to Muslim population expansion? While it is true that Western countries are experiencing dropping birth rates, the birth rates of the Muslim countries are falling even faster. Muslim countries still have a higher birth rate than most Western countries, but their birth rates are falling at a faster rate. Iran is the most extreme case in the Islamic world with the fastest drop in births; but Turkey and Algeria are not far behind.
America’s fear of the Muslim world may be ill founded. The Soviet Union, which liberal thinkers thought was invincible, fell before the economic and cultural power of the United States under Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, America has elected a President who has no faith in the American system nor in the strength of our country. He seems bent on apologizing to the Muslims; and his obvious deep sentimental attachment to the Muslim world is plain to see. The only thing we have to fear from the Muslims is our own fear, itself. We need to stand up and proclaim the truth that we have the character and the strength to lead this world into a veritable principle that individual freedom and enterprise can bring about great blessings to all peoples.
I am reminded of the beginning of the Reagan administration. America had been humiliated for months by the tiny regime of Libya, which was in the business of blowing up passenger planes over the Mediterranean. President Carter had faced that problem by sitting in his office and wringing his hands. When Ronald Reagan came to office, he sent one or two fighter bombers over Libya, dropped a bomb on the factory producing explosives in Libya, and the whole problem ceased. We need another Ronald Reagan in the White House!!
Parts of this post were excerpted from First Things, the Morality of Self-Interest, June 2010.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Obama's Biggest Blunder
Conservatives tend to criticize President Obama’s fiscal and domestic policies to the high heavens; but I think that the biggest blunder of this administration is its neglect of things international, especially of the obvious problems going on in Iran and the Middle East. This administration is extremely slow to act when destabilization is running rampant among our avowed enemies in that part of the world. If you do not believe that is true, just look at how long it took President Obama to decide to send 38,000 more urgently needed troops to Afghanistan—months! Now, he sits still while Hamas perfects a rocket launcher in the Gaza strip capable of delivering a bomb (presumably an Iranian nuclear weapon) to Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, Hamas continues to lob explosive rockets into Israeli settlements in southern Israel.
The latest danger comes, of course, from Iran. President Ahmadinejad announced via state TV yesterday that Iran was going on to enrich uranium, supposedly to make a medical reactor. How long must we stand by and watch this kind of preparation for war going on before we act in our own best interests and the best interest of the whole world, especially the interests of a peaceful Middle East?!
We fail to act, even in words of encouragement, to the democrats in Iran who are protesting tyranny and laying down their lives for freedom. The Iranian regime continues to repress protests of their corrupt national election on June 12 while the United States hesitates to even endorse the actions of the protesters verbally. While the United States sleeps, street protesters around the world came out on Sunday to protest human rights violations in Iran.
We hear a lot of criticism of the Bush administration for apparently failing to understand that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before our invasion. But now, we stand by and allow the Iranian government to announce openly that they are producing nuclear capability. Talk about “weapons of mass destruction!” This is ridiculous!!
It seems to me that the one hope the free world has is Israel. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not one to let his country be destroyed before his very eyes. A pre-emptive strike against Iran is a very real possibility at the hands of the Israelis; but I doubt very seriously that our American military power is wont to help them if they do act to save their country and their lives.
WE NEED SOME ACTION ON THE PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO STOP THE DANGER IN IRAN!!
The latest danger comes, of course, from Iran. President Ahmadinejad announced via state TV yesterday that Iran was going on to enrich uranium, supposedly to make a medical reactor. How long must we stand by and watch this kind of preparation for war going on before we act in our own best interests and the best interest of the whole world, especially the interests of a peaceful Middle East?!
We fail to act, even in words of encouragement, to the democrats in Iran who are protesting tyranny and laying down their lives for freedom. The Iranian regime continues to repress protests of their corrupt national election on June 12 while the United States hesitates to even endorse the actions of the protesters verbally. While the United States sleeps, street protesters around the world came out on Sunday to protest human rights violations in Iran.
We hear a lot of criticism of the Bush administration for apparently failing to understand that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before our invasion. But now, we stand by and allow the Iranian government to announce openly that they are producing nuclear capability. Talk about “weapons of mass destruction!” This is ridiculous!!
It seems to me that the one hope the free world has is Israel. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not one to let his country be destroyed before his very eyes. A pre-emptive strike against Iran is a very real possibility at the hands of the Israelis; but I doubt very seriously that our American military power is wont to help them if they do act to save their country and their lives.
WE NEED SOME ACTION ON THE PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO STOP THE DANGER IN IRAN!!
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Obama—Timid on Foreign Policy
President Obama’s policies have been made crystal clear in the past year, i.e., intrusive regulatory government at home and retrenchment abroad. He does not seem to realize that we have many powerful enemies “out there” in the foreign world, enemies with whom we could deal effectively to the benefit of the whole free world.
He has withdrawn from our task of protecting our allies, e.g., Poland and the Czech Republic when he withdrew the missile shield from Eastern Europe. He was forever dragging his feet when it came to sending adequate troops to Afghanistan to get the job done there. He has failed to even rhetorically support the democrats in Iran who badly need his endorsement to throw off a tyrannical regime. He even continues to court the cooperation of the Ahmadinijad government in thinking seriously of sending a John Kerry delegation to that country to continue the useless talks with the present government of Iran, begging them to give up their nuclear ambitions. He has tried to get the Israelis to attempt another useless gesture to trade land for peace with the Palestinians on the west bank of the Jordan River when he asked the Israelis to quit building villages there.
In all this, he has stepped away from the policies of protecting America, which were clearly supported by other Democrat presidents in the past, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.
Under Mr. Obama, we have pulled back from the foreign world. We are weaker for accepting the false choice between burdens at home and burdens abroad; and the world beyond our shores is more hazardous and cynical for our retrenchment and preoccupation with health care at home and other domestic problems.
Let’s try to get our government back from the liberal “blame America first” crowd in the 2010 elections.
This post was partly excerpted from The Wall Street Journal 12/31/09 page A13.
He has withdrawn from our task of protecting our allies, e.g., Poland and the Czech Republic when he withdrew the missile shield from Eastern Europe. He was forever dragging his feet when it came to sending adequate troops to Afghanistan to get the job done there. He has failed to even rhetorically support the democrats in Iran who badly need his endorsement to throw off a tyrannical regime. He even continues to court the cooperation of the Ahmadinijad government in thinking seriously of sending a John Kerry delegation to that country to continue the useless talks with the present government of Iran, begging them to give up their nuclear ambitions. He has tried to get the Israelis to attempt another useless gesture to trade land for peace with the Palestinians on the west bank of the Jordan River when he asked the Israelis to quit building villages there.
In all this, he has stepped away from the policies of protecting America, which were clearly supported by other Democrat presidents in the past, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.
Under Mr. Obama, we have pulled back from the foreign world. We are weaker for accepting the false choice between burdens at home and burdens abroad; and the world beyond our shores is more hazardous and cynical for our retrenchment and preoccupation with health care at home and other domestic problems.
Let’s try to get our government back from the liberal “blame America first” crowd in the 2010 elections.
This post was partly excerpted from The Wall Street Journal 12/31/09 page A13.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
