Alternative US Foreign Policy

Okay, hype - getting back to the point of your thread, here's a serious suggestion for a new foreign policy:

Create a truth and reconciliation commission that will reveal and review all of the United States' violations of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and International Law in general going back one hundred years. Create a reparations fund (fifty to a hundred billion dollars a year ought to be a good start) to be administrated by the United Nations and the World Court with the goal of repairing and compensating for the damage we have caused. Volunteer to withdraw from the security council with the objective of the eventual dismantling of the council. Stop all support for any regime that fails to conform to UNDHR and International Law. Withdraw all U.S. military forces from foreign countries and promise to redeploy forces only in concert with other countries' forces under United Nations mandates.

If we did all that, I would be willing to bet my life that there would be no more terrorist attacks on American citizens or interests.
 
I propose a thourough isolationist policy. First, finish up all operations in Afghanistan and Iraq within 2 years of first policy implementation. Whatever isn't done, let the natives take care of it. Next, reduce membership dues/participation in the IMF and UN. This would serve to put us on a more equal footing with other nations. And plus, we don't really need %17 of the votes in the IMF. We control the global economy! Use that extra money towards reducing the deficit and keeping social security/medicare practical without raising taxes too much. Third, scale back all global military operations by closing foriegn bases and recalling all troops back home. We don't need all of those bases world-wide we we can just as easily deploy our entire military from our homeland. Fourth: only engage in foriegn military operations if asked by UN, NATO, or other recognized soviergn governments/coalitions (and meets with approval of UN).
 
Last edited:
If we did all that, I would be willing to bet my life that there would be no more terrorist attacks on American citizens or interests.

I very much doubt that, the US is hated in the Middle East, but the UN is seen as nothing more as a puppet of the US and her “heathen allies”. As long as there is no Islamic state on the UN SC permanent 5 nothing is going to happen. As long as the Middle East isn’t in an “Ummah” and as long as the US supports Israel, expect there to be more and more terrorist attacks. The US has to basically pull out of the Middle East to accomplish anything near peace. There ppl won’t settle for less.

vodooeconomist

First, finish up all operations in Afghanistan and Iraq within 2 years of first policy implementation.

What does that really entail? Leave those countries in perpetual states of disunity, and disaster causing the two to become significantly more problematic then before? But on the flip side, chances are that’s going to happen anyways.

let the natives take care of it.

Are you so sure you want to do that?

Third, scale back all global military operations by closing foriegn bases and recalling all troops back home. We don't need all of those bases world-wide we we can just as easily deploy our entire military from our homeland.

Problem with that is the US has many contracts with nations, like Germany, and South Korea promising to protect them. You cannot deploy your entire military from the US and expect them to make a difference, this line of argumentation made sense back before WWII when wars were large and it took months to mobilize, now there is question if you want to be relevant in the world today, and protect your interests (in which the US has many) you have to be near the action to pounce on your “enemies”. A great deal many states wouldn’t exist today if the US wasn’t around admittedly.

Fourth: only engage in foriegn military operations if asked by UN, NATO, or other recognized soviergn governments/coalitions (and meets with approval of UN).

Agree with you 100%, unless there is a direct attack on the homeland, but those organizations have to agree to military action anyways.
 
Last edited:
te jen,
"Create a truth and reconciliation commission that will reveal and review all of the United States' violations of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and International Law in general going back one hundred years. Create a reparations fund (fifty to a hundred billion dollars a year ought to be a good start) to be administrated by the United Nations and the World Court with the goal of repairing and compensating for the damage we have caused"
Reparations? Always a dumb idea. What good would this do? Pour money into the UN which has shown a nifty ability to be as corrupt as expected? Do you think this money would help? Why should the US be the only ones paying reparations? Why go back 100 years? Why not more or less? Quite simply a dumb idea.
"Volunteer to withdraw from the security council with the objective of the eventual dismantling of the council. "
What good would this do?
"Stop all support for any regime that fails to conform to UNDHR and International Law. Withdraw all U.S. military forces from foreign countries and promise to redeploy forces only in concert with other countries' forces under United Nations mandates. "
Here we go! Now this stuff makes sense. I agree with the general activities, but I disagree with why and how.
The US should not support rogue regimes in general as it has shown to not have the desired consequences. The US should withdraw forces from foreign countries. But we should not rely on UN mandate. The US has the right to defend itself when attacked or presented with an immiment threat. (Dictionary definition of imminent threat not George W's :) )

"If we did all that, I would be willing to bet my life that there would be no more terrorist attacks on American citizens or interests. "
Probably not true, but the chances would be greatly reduced. Anyway, the important thing is that we could fight the war on idealogical grounds and route the hundreds of billions to beefing up national security instead of meddling with others' affairs.

As stated early in this thread, I am for isolationism. I am in agreement with voodoo, though we do reserve the right to strike a target that presents a clear and present danger to the US, regardless of the UN.
 
Undecided,
" As long as the Middle East isn’t in an “Ummah” and as long as the US supports Israel, expect there to be more and more terrorist attacks. The US has to basically pull out of the Middle East to accomplish anything near peace"

Yes, the US should abandon its support for israel and pull out of the ME as soon as possible. It would still be targeted by the hardcore radicals, but the west will always be. The US has to try and win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate muslim population that now sees the US as satan. If not that, then at least divert the attention somewhere else. Only way to do that is get out and leave the countries to fend for themselves. Will this create another hitler as you hint? Who knows but right now the US can easily be ready for that by concentrating on its own defenses.

"Problem with that is the US has many contracts with nations, like Germany, and South Korea promising to protect them. "
Yes, this makes it a balancing act. You cannot simply close shop on all the bases. There are alliances to honor. But can't a great reduction be accomplished without sacrificing these commitments. Obviously, the biggest areas are now Iraq and Afganistan. These are the first areas that should have an aggressive exit plan.
 
fadingCaptain said:
Reparations? Always a dumb idea. What good would this do? Pour money into the UN which has shown a nifty ability to be as corrupt as expected? Do you think this money would help? Why should the US be the only ones paying reparations? Why go back 100 years? Why not more or less? Quite simply a dumb idea.
Click to expand...

The idea with the truth and reconciliation commission is simply to own up. Kind of like admitting you have a problem is the first step, etc.

I should have been a little clearer - let's stop pissing away all our aid to this and that country, and give the hundred billion to the U.N. I'm certain that 163 countries could be depended on to watch the disbursements like a bunch of hawks. Regardless, we'd SAVE money in the long run and it would be a nice gesture.

Would it help? It certainly wouldn't hurt.

Should the U.S. be the only ones paying reparations. Hell, no. But you gotta start somewhere, and we might as well set an example.

Why go back a hundred years? Just pulled that one out of my butt - perhaps a better benchmark would be the beginnings of consideration of international norms of human rights which more or less coincided with the League of Nations.

Just going for a little Truth and Justice in the American Way. It that really so dumb?

fadingCaptain said:
"Volunteer to withdraw from the security council with the objective of the eventual dismantling of the council. "

What good would this do?
Click to expand...

The security council is crippling the United Nations. Again, set the example and stand down from the council while promoting the amendment of the charter to totally delete it.

fadingCaptain said:
"Stop all support for any regime that fails to conform to UNDHR and International Law. Withdraw all U.S. military forces from foreign countries and promise to redeploy forces only in concert with other countries' forces under United Nations mandates. "
Here we go! Now this stuff makes sense. I agree with the general activities, but I disagree with why and how.
The US should not support rogue regimes in general as it has shown to not have the desired consequences. The US should withdraw forces from foreign countries. But we should not rely on UN mandate. The US has the right to defend itself when attacked or presented with an immiment threat.
Click to expand...

The last first. I agree that the US has the right to defend when attacked or presented with an imminent threat. Under this tenet we had every right to kick ass on Afghanistan, and every right to go after terrorists where they can be found, IN AS LEGAL A MANNER AS POSSIBLE. We also, in my opinion, have a concomitant moral responsibility to rationally address the reasons why people are so pissed off at us.

I think that if we went at foreign policy with a firm eye on international standards of justice and standards of evidence, we would never have to worry about getting a U.N. mandate. After all, if Bush had just listened for five seconds to Kofi Annan in the spring of 2003 he would not be faced with the shitstorm he has over his head now. The process COULD work.

fadingCaptain said:
"If we did all that, I would be willing to bet my life that there would be no more terrorist attacks on American citizens or interests."
Probably not true, but the chances would be greatly reduced. Anyway, the important thing is that we could fight the war on idealogical grounds and route the hundreds of billions to beefing up national security instead of meddling with others' affairs.
Click to expand...

What I meant was - if we take away the causes of terrorism, then why would anybody bother to commit it against us? Where's the motivation?
You wouldn't need to beef up national security, either. Not like you can, in any event.

fadingCaptain said:
As stated early in this thread, I am for isolationism. I am in agreement with voodoo, though we do reserve the right to strike a target that presents a clear and present danger to the US, regardless of the UN.
Click to expand...

Isolationism is a strong word - do you mean non-intervention? Minding our own damn business? Playing well with others?
 
FC

Only way to do that is get out and leave the countries to fend for themselves. Will this create another hitler as you hint?

No I suggest that to happen should the US leave the Iraqi’s to their own devices. I am confident that if American threats, and influence were degraded in the region, Islamization should really begin.

Te Jen

The security council is crippling the United Nations. Again, set the example and stand down from the council while promoting the amendment of the charter to totally delete it.

Do you believe that states are going to pay attention to a UN without a SC? The UN’s power rests from that council, and no nation is actually going to give up that power. I think the UNSC should expand with two new members, preferably Brazil, and India.
 
te jen,
"Isolationism is a strong word - do you mean non-intervention? Minding our own damn business? Playing well with others?"

Non-interventionism would be a more accurate term. Of course for economic reasons we cannot be truly 'isololationist'.
Why do I think non-interventionism would be better? It is simple. US foreign policy actions have not helped but hindered both a)the global community and b)our own security.
The arguments against non-interventionism usually are some diatribe about look what happened with hitler and japan prior to WWII. Well, I happen to think the world is a much different place than it was 60 years ago. It would be extremely hard for a dictator/country to start a successful offensive campaign. Unless, it is the US of course...

undecided,
"No I suggest that to happen should the US leave the Iraqi’s to their own devices. I am confident that if American threats, and influence were degraded in the region, Islamization should really begin. "

Are you saying that if unchecked, radical islam will spread and threaten global security? At a much faster pace than already? What would be the fuel to this fire if the US wasn't involved in the region? Simple hate for the western way of life?
 
Are you saying that if unchecked, radical islam will spread and threaten global security? At a much faster pace than already? What would be the fuel to this fire if the US wasn't involved in the region? Simple hate for the western way of life?

They don’t want our way of life, no they don’t. Islamic radicalism is a response to Globalization, especially cultural globalization. We are imposing our ways of life on them yes, and Iraq is a perfect example of that. Democracy is a western concept, freedom for women, etc. are things that western society cherishes; they have a different take on it. We are imposing our enlightenment ethics on them, before they have been able to go through their own enlightenment. Radical Islam is spreading as it is, and major figureheads will fall, the US tore down Saddam for them, now they have the house of Saud and the domino effect should happen.
 
A few thoughts because I'm late on this one:

First, non-interventionism/isolationism (call it what you want) would NOT be a wise policy for the US. You stated that it seems that no dictator is capable of a successful offense. Terrorists can be used by dictators. If no state actor is involved terrorists have mounted quite the offense recently.

How democracy and human rights are "culture" and specifically "American culture" is beyond me.

Democracy has existed in the Middle East before, look at Lebanon before their civil war. Women's rights? Iranian women were wearing halter tops and hot pants before the Ayathollah came in.

You're right, "they" don't want our way of live. They are the cadre of corrupt, paranoid, ultra-religious and plain ol' evil Muslims. People in the Mideast get democracy and its trappings it means these guys are outta business.

BTW: the Enlightenment has nothing to do with democracy. In fact the Greeks (who are antithetical to the Enlightenment) started democracy.

I'd be more than happy to see the house of Saud and the 21 other autocratic Arab dictatorships fall so long as they were replaced by governments that helped their people and did not threaten their neighbors, the US or the world.

I'll be posting my own "alternative" foreign policy designs later. I'm a Bush supporter but I can see some changes I would affect.

P.S. Soft power is overstated. Hard power is the only thing that matters, which means political, economic and military strength.
 
"First, non-interventionism/isolationism (call it what you want)..."

Yes, curly1 you are a little late on this one. Glancing at the first sentence in the thread might have helped, though:
Most of us who have voiced any criticism for US foreign policy under the Bush II Administration are regularly accused of perceiving no viable alternatives- or, we are told there are no alternatives, and therefore the alternative is inaction.
Click to expand...

If you think that the issues are as simple as to act or not act, or be "hard" or soft, then please do read some more of the thread before "I'll be posting my own "alternative" foreign policy designs later" as you say. I don't mean this harshly, and invite your ideas. Your point of view will be better considered (by me, and possibly others) if you take a quick look at what's been covered so far.
 
Te Jen
Create a truth and reconciliation commission that will reveal and review all of the United States' violations of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and International Law in general going back one hundred years. Create a reparations fund (fifty to a hundred billion dollars a year ought to be a good start) to be administrated by the United Nations and the World Court with the goal of repairing and compensating for the damage we have caused. Volunteer to withdraw from the security council with the objective of the eventual dismantling of the council. Stop all support for any regime that fails to conform to UNDHR and International Law. Withdraw all U.S. military forces from foreign countries and promise to redeploy forces only in concert with other countries' forces under United Nations mandates.
Click to expand...

Although that would be more economical than present policy, it's obviously far too humiliating for Americans in their present world standing to support. I know it's grasping at straws, but could we consider alternative policy that it might be politically possible to implement?
 
I think that the biggest points to sort out are (1) an exit strategy from Iraq, and (2) a coherent policy towards Israel/Palestine, because these parallel ruts prevent any directional control over US mideast and foreign policy as a whole. The USA does not have very long to make some realistic sense of this, because things are likely to become even more dynamic in the Mideast soon, and in this dark night of understanding, staying the course at full throttle, with the headlights off, "wouldn't be prudent", as George Bush Sr. used to say.

Bushmen don't even want to try reverse for an instant, and I would like for one to refute my accusation that the primary reason for lack of an exit strategy, or a return to relations with elected Palestinian officials, is that it was not considered before or after portentious moves were made. Then and now, the reasons reverse is unthinkable have nothing to to with strategy, but instead have very much to do with blind arrogance. If mistakes are in similar fashion not to be acknowledged, then there truly is no way out of this mess before senseless catastrophies multiply. In the simplest terms, right now I think it's a life-or-death race between events getting out of hand, and relatively peaceful regime change in every nation concerned. The US presidential election of 2004 will be very critical for the entire world.
 
Sorry about that. I was simply enumerating the the policy of less foreign intervention by the US by using that term. Regardless of my conservative mindset and support for president Bush, I'm not so foolish to think that the choice is between doing something and doing nothing. Far from it.

I try not to make broad brush accusations about the left. I try to even avoid using "the left" as it makes everything liberal sound like a monolith- which is not correct in the left or right-wing.

***

As for my alternative foreign policy, its not so much alternative as it is a modification on the Bush Doctorine and W's policies.

My policy and his share one main goal (beyond killing terrorists): democratization of the Middle East.

Iraq: I would have tried to really kill a lot more insurgents before the handover to soverignty. After June 30 the US will be put in a position where it will have to try to meetle out a political solution to Fallujah and Sadr even if it can't work.

The difference here is "have to" instead of "wants to." I was all for experimenting with some peaceful alternatives to the insurgency and the Sadr rebellion, but I'm afraid both might have failed.

Sadr wants to run in elections, which isn't a terrible idea. As president I would have the State Department and Negroponte work damn hard to ensure a crushing, but fair, electoral defeat for Sadr. If Iraqis isolate him and regard his platform as invalid by the ballot he will either wither or give the Iraqis a strong platform for killing him should he try to cause further trouble.

Beyond that I'm basicallly congruent on Iraq with Bush. I'd formally ask NATO and the UN for more help, as well as keep pushing the international community, but not hold my breath.

Syria:

I would use aggressive diplomacy with Syria to try to get it to get rid of its fledgling WMD program, support for terrorists and the Iraqi insurgency, as well as its long occupation of Lebanon. I would go to the Security Council, impose sanctions and really start using tough rhetoric that would remind people of Syria's indigressions.

I'd push for inspectors for WMD. If he makes real steps at turning over terrorists and cutting support for them I would lift my sanctions. I would offer international assistance to him if he withdraws from Lebanon.

With a lot of work Lebanon could become the second democratic model for the Middle East next to Iraq. It could, in the future, become a viable trading partner with Israel.

Iran:

No nuclear weapons at all. I would make this a much more pressing issue than it is now. Instantly going to the Security Coucil to put fourth a resolution that would demand Iran undo all of its bomb making projects and deconstruct its reactor. I would speak to Putin about this one too. If they do this good, if not I'd say I'm ready to initate full blown military action (airstrikes mostly) to destroy the nuclear infrastructure.

Should it come to that a larger plan to destroy the nuclear infrastructure would have to be surely followed by attacks on the Iranian military, terrorist camps and intelligence services to ensure that Iran could not play around in Iraq. I would definately push for tough diplomacy being that war would create a lot of problems, but the mullahs' couldn't get the bomb.

Greater Middle East:

I would start saying to some Mideast states: you must pursue liberalization of your economies and democratic elections as well as basic human rights or you will be sanctioned by the US and isolated from the world community. I would threaten to pull the $4 billion in aid to Egypt if Mubarak didn't move along quicker with such reforms. I would have all this be on a rolling basis, so that each country would not have to become Switzerland overnight.

Saudi Arabia:

Sending special forces and CIA units to Saudi Arabia (covertly) to kill al Qaeda there would be a number one priority. This would only be in return for the end of funding terrorists and Whabbi Islam. Democratic reforms and pro-people initatives would have to follow to make sure the House of Saud could stay alive without their religious support.

If they didn't take my offer I'd leave them for al Qaeda and focus on oil independence from Saudi Arabia, moving on to the broader Mideast. I'd hang them out to dry if they didn't battle al Qaeda in full and more importantly radical Islam. "You are either with us, or with the terrorists."

I'd get rid of US farm subsides so that farmers in the Mideast and elsewhere wouldn't have to compete with our farm subsides. This would make sure less people are unemployed and willing to get paid and educated by terrorists.

North Korea would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon either. They would have to competely undo EVERYTHING nuclear in return for increased international economic aid and the fact that there wouldn't be war with them. Further steps would allow Kim to peel back his military while allowing reform in return for some safety assurances from the US and South Korea, as well as the other four nations in talks.

Thats what I've thrown together in 15 minutes. Far from perfect but that's what I've got on short time.
 
That could just work, curly1, if the US only had the barest of popular mandates in the Mideast for more violent and widespread interventionism. What you have thus far ducked, is the clearly demonstrated phenomena that US intervention in the Mideast breeds a popular groundswell of resistance. You're advocating involvement in the Mideast as did the Romans, Ottomans, British, and Italians at their most imperialistic, at a point in history when residents of the Mideast are far less amenable to foreign administration than ever, and the US public has no inkling of what the bloody price of a military pseudoempire would be today. You can't paint an Arab face on the efforts you describe, and expect a sufficient majority to sign onto it. As it stands in current events, political association with the US government is the Kiss of Death, and any realistic alternative policy must acknowledge this fact.

Again, this does not force the USA into inaction. It forces the US to re-evaluate the most pressing political realities and address them not with force and threats, but with honesty, globally visible good intentions, and diplomacy. Social Darwinism will not work in a situation when Empire's bluff has been called: Inexhaustible millions will reply to any would-be American-branded reshaping of the region very simply: "Come over here and make us".
 
To say that US intervention in the Middle East and that of everyone else makes things worse I really think is wrong. Imperalism certinaly didn't help, but it was in no direct way a cause of terrorism we experience today.

We have to intervene in the Middle East because if we don't radical Islamism will continue to rise and hit us again. We didn't do anything positive for years so not doing anything positive now would only reap more terrorist attacks.


I'm not talking about imposing culture as some idiot in another post did earlier. Democratic elections and basic human rights, which serve to better people in the region, is what is needed to stop their feelings of humiliation and helplessness. Mix those two together and they will always rally around a strongman, be it Saddam, Arafat, Nasser, or now bin Laden.

I'm not saying we'd have to invade every nation to get democracy, but I'm sure not going to bankroll corrupt leaders that don't give two shits about their people. If the region improves in such a way terrorism will likely die off. There would be little reason to support the killers and this would isolate them from society-- the best way to fight terrorism indigeniously.

The Mideast has to be reshaped, because it's in bad shape as is.
 
Sorry, but you sound like someone with a disintegrating hard drive trying to fix it with a defragmenter. Like I already stated, but you have not addressed, American-branded solutions are patently unacceptable, because the USA is considered eminently culpable in the present mess. We can't ride into Jerusalem on a loyal Arab charger, because it's just a corrupt grey-haired donkey to the millions who will kill and die to see Uncle Sam unhorsed and humiliated.
 
We have to intervene in the Middle East because if we don't radical Islamism will continue to rise and hit us again.

And invading their nations, destroying their cultures, imposing our value systems, capitalism, and western values is going to do that? Then you obviously don't know why they are attacking you in the first place.
 
hypewaders said:
Te Jen


Although that would be more economical than present policy, it's obviously far too humiliating for Americans in their present world standing to support. I know it's grasping at straws, but could we consider alternative policy that it might be politically possible to implement?
Click to expand...

Geez - in one of your initial postings you said "I would like to look at any other conceivable alternatives or modifications to an American debacle followed immediately by civil war." I guess I was taking you too literally.

Policies can only be implemented if there is support for those policies on the ground. We are now in a position where ANY policy we advocate will be rejected simply due to its source. The result of this is that only an anti-policy is viable - that is - a GTFO policy - and when the dust settles after a generation or two then maybe that blood-drenched land can find a better path.
 
"We are now in a position where ANY policy we advocate will be rejected simply due to its source."

As things blow up in the Bushmens' faces (and ours), I am expecting more opportunities for alternative policies to be considered and even popularized. Right now, we're fumbling around with fundamentals and fundamentalists while events turn ever more ominous. Most everyone I communicate with, and myself included, we're only beginning to figure out what's happening, but the only clarifying awareness is that we're in for some troubles we aren't even seriously discussing how to fix.

I'm desperately looking for ideas that could stave off disaster, and you stoicly welcome disaster as our due. Geez. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top