Categorized | Submission

Towards a New Foreign Policy





Guest Submission by: Zbigniew Mazurak

There’s no doubt that America’s current foreign policy is internally inconsistent and totally ineffective, whether it relates to Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, or Latin America.

Unfortunately, some people are calling for America to return to the isolationist policies of the 19th century, invoking Jefferson’s principle of “peace, honest friendship, and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none”. That policy was not suited even to the world of the 19th century, let alone the world of today. So it should not be adopted.

But does it mean that the current policy of promiscous interventionism should be continued? No, because it is bad for America. There is, however, an alternative, a third way. This assumes the US will intervene abroad, but only when it’s absolutely necessary. Here’s what this new foreign policy should look like:

First and foremost, whatever else happens or is done, America must always maintain a strong defense to protect itself and its interests.

Secondly, the US should review all of its current treaty commitments, alliances, basing arrangements and military deployments. Those not worth continuing should be ended; those that are valuable should be continued, at the minimum cost to American taxpayers. Troops should be withdrawn from theaters where they don’t need to be, starting with countries that are not directly threatened by war (e.g. Germany); they should remain only in those few countries that are directly threatened by aggressors (e.g. South Korea and Japan). America’s NATO allies must start bearing a far larger share of the total cost of mutual defense if this alliance is to be maintained. Treaties by which foreign countries have managed to hog-tie the US (e.g. the New START treaty and the yet-unratified CTBT) must be repealed.

Thirdly, the US should maintain cordial relations with all of its allies and friends around the world. Never again should the US throw its allies under the bus to appease hostile dictators, nor to obtain a lousy treaty from Russia (as was the case with the UK). Occassionally, the US will disagree with them, and that’s fine. But America’s allies (including Israel) should be treated as allies, not pawns or enemies. Mistakes like abruptly cancelling missile defense plans for Europe or giving detailed information about British SLBMs to Russia must never be repeated.

When undertaking any significant action, the US should make sure that at least some of its allies are on board, as was the case with the Iraqi war, when 30 countries joined the “coalition of the willing”, despite liberals’ lies that the US waged the war alone and that Bush was a fan of unilateralism.

As for America’s enemies, they should be treated as harshly as possible. The US should negotiate with them whenever possible, but only from a position of strength, and these negotiations must end in some kind of agreement or arrangement. Talks for their own sake are pointless. And the US should never make any concessions that would incur unreasonable costs, weaken America’s defense (e.g. disarmament treaties), or otherwise imperil the country.

What happens, though, when negotiations and sanctions fail? When should the US initiate a war?

A decision to send young Americans into battle must never be made lightly. It’s the most serious decision America can make.

Firstly, before initiating hostilies, the US government should make sure that all non-combat means of pressure have been exhausted and failed to do the task, and no other option other than war remains. Secondly, it must be proven that the enemy cannot be deterred poses such a grave threat that a war is unavoidable. Thirdly, clear, specific goals must be determined and an exit strategy must be devised to avoid endless entanglement. Fourth, if America decides to go to war, the military shouldn’t be in any way restricted in how it wages the war. And finally, war should be waged only for the sake of America’s crucial interests – not for “democratization of the Middle East”. This means reinstating the Weinberger Doctrine, promulgated in 1984 after the Lebanese fiasco and recently adopted by Governor Palin.

No wars should be waged without a Congressional Declaration of War, as required by the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution is clear: you’re not allowed to go to war without a Declaration of War. Presidential orders and Congressional “authorizations” of war are not enough. America’s Founding Fathers stated that clearly.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. And, as General Sherman said, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. That’s how the Union won the Civil War and how the US won World War II.

Two policies can greatly reduce the risk of war. One is the policy of nuclear deterrence, also known as the MAD doctrine, which has worked flawlessly since 1949 and there is no proof that it would not work against even a nuclear-armed Iran. Should nuclear deterrence fail, there’s another policy option available today: missile defense. A tiny part of the defense budget, missile defense is the only protection you have if a missile is indeed launched.

Growing the number of BMD systems, improving them, and deploying them abroad should be a priority goal for US foreign policy. These purely defense systems can greatly reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation if deterrence fails, and, if deployed in sufficient numbers, could even convince rogue states that their nuclear programs are pointless.

When analyzing any event, threat, country, or faction, American policymakers should hierarchize them on a three-point scale. At the top of the ladder are crucial American interests and the threats to them. Defeating these threats justifies any measure, including, in extreme cases, war.

Next on the ladder are marginal issues. These include marginal partner countries, assets, enemy countries, and factions. Cuba could potentially be a threat again, if Moscow decided to use it as a beachhead against the US again, but until that happens, Raul Castro is merely a rabid anti-American tinpot dictator.

At the bottom of the ladder are the majority of world issues, countries, leaders, and factions today: irrelevant issues. Who governs Bosnia, angladesh, or Togo is of no concern to the US, and there would be no adverse consequences if the US doesn’t tackle these issues. Other than standard diplomatic condemnations and resolutions, no effort should be expended on them.

American politicians must stand up to ethnic lobbies and not allow them to skew foreign policy any longer. No countries should be treated in a privileged way like sacred cows.

Last but not least: there’s currently a dispute, ongoing since the 1970s, about whether human rights or America’s interests should be prioritized by American policymakers. But this question is, itself, a mistake. Human rights constitute an inseparable part of America’s interests. It is in America’s own best interest to make sure that human rights will be respected around the world. Free countries that fully respect human rights are not America’s enemies and are unlikely to ever be. America’s enemies are exclusively dictatorships which respect neither God nor man.

Of course, human rights aren’t America’s only global interest; far from it. Other crucial interests, such as nonproliferation, must be weighed in, too. But neither should human rights be discarded, as they have been by Secretary Kissinger and Secretary Clinton.

America needs a balanced foreign policy, one that devotes equal priority to human rights and to other considerations. They are sometimes mutually exclusive, but sometimes (indeed, most of the time), they’re not. And when they’re not, America should stand for freedom and human rights.



Tags: ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • free4now

    What an incredibly well thought-out article.  Thank you! 

  • unseen1

    The USa should never worry or care if allies or others are onboard.   The USa should never gve veto power to the international  community  when their interests are at stake. 

    • ziggy1988

      Of course, and I never suggested that it should. But the opinions of crucial allies – such as Israel, Britain, South Korea, Japan, and Australia should be considered. Unfortunately, the present administration ignores them.

  • Stoneyjack

    "American politicians must stand up to ethnic lobbies and not allow them to skew foreign policy any longer. No countries should be treated in a privileged way like sacred cows." Very profound & pertinent statement, but not a popular view around here, and certainly not Gov. Palin’s position.

  • Carmelo Junior

    America’s Commander in Chief has the power to launch preentive strikes to other countries without Congress approval. America’s CIC can send US troops(with certain restrictions)  to any part of the world without Congress approval. Declaration of War is a Congress’s prerrogative not a right.
     
    The title Commander in Chief is one of the most important titles of a president. Congress is not a CIC. 
     
    A Cosntitution can be ammended. It is not written in stone like the 10 commandments.
     
    Isolationist and  nationalist policies have failed.
     
    Human rights should not be a priority for the USA. The USA is not able to avoid every single human right violation in the world, The USA should not be the police of the world. It should be instead the model of democracy and freedom for which other nations follow or not follow on their own demise.
     

  • $8196935

    All the hoop jumping before being allowed  confronting the enemy 
    does not fit the enemy we confront today.

    As I write this, thousands from Syria have crossed the
    border into Israel and Palestinians are rioting in the streets
    there.

    The Middle East and North Africa has turned even more extreme
    in recent months and Iran is a ring leader.

    Central and South American Countries have Marxist leaders with
    Hugo Chavez and his oil rich country as ring leader with Iran and Russia
    arming him with Nuclear weapons.

    A major war in progress in Mexico with over 34,000 dead

    With the above enemies also living in America by the millions,

    Warfare today is not like WWII where there is a front and a rear  and the
    enemy wears a uniform. 

    The terrorists that flew the plane into the Pentagon lived 6 miles form me
    here in San Diego.  Top Terrorist Anwar al- Awlaki living in Yeman lived
    in San Diego for 4 Years and also helped radicalize the 9/11 terrorists.

    We live in a different world and must defeat the enemy however we can
    not treat the oncoming distruction of America as a hoop jumping civil service
    project.

    I say this having several relatives serving in the Military defending America

  • $8196935

    As usual, the subject of Foreign Policy receives a few comments.

    Some think they can keep their Social and Financial Con lives
    when the world situation is as bleak as 1938 Europe only worse.
    and that includes the United States.

  • cookboy

     Free4now said it for me. Thank you both.

  • patnatasha

    America needs to get back to leading again. 

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets