What Motivates US Foreign Policy?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by davidhume, Nov 10, 2005.

Loading...
  1. davidhume

    davidhume New Member

    In another thread, a poster said that the US would not be intereested in the injustices in Zimbabwe because 'there is no oil and they are black".

    The presumption seems to be that the US only becomes 'actively' involved in countries where they can gain an economic benefit.

    I don't think that held true for Vietnam and I am not too sure about what benefits North Korea holds for the US.

    Furthermore, the US is still the single largest provider of aid to the world.

    And when there is any world crisis or situation, the world is always muttering: " What is the US doing about it". And when they do something, the world continues to mutter: " Why have the US got involved" - the old story of 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't!'.

    So, what do you think motivates US foreign policy?
     
  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    That quote was a bit of bitter hyperbole on my part.

    Well, I'd GUESS that the U.S. at bottom has the same grand strategy now that we've more or less always had; no "foreign" interference in the affairs of the Americas and to allow the existence of no state or combination of states capable of dominating the United States, whether militarily or economically.

    In a WAY, it really is all about oil but not just for Exxon's profits; the country really DOES run on the stuff. So as a matter of national security, we pretty well have to look closely whenever anything in the Middle East or South America or wherever looks like it might disrupt the orderly recovery and delivery of oil supplies.

    I can give you an oil based theory for Viet Nam, for instance, that actually made sense to me when they gave it to me during my time at Officer Candidate School.
     
  3. davidhume

    davidhume New Member

    Is that really so ,that the US will NOT " allow the existence of no state or combination of states capable of dominating the United States, whether militarily or economically"?
     
  4. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    The motivation for U.S. foreign policy is protecting American interests.

    The motivation for France's foreign policy is protecting French interests.

    The motivation for Spain's foreign policy is protecting Spanish interests.

    The motivation for Germany's foreign policy is protecting German interests.

    The motivation for China's foreign policy is protecting Chinese interests.

    The motivation for Brazil's foreign policy is protecting Brazilian interests.

    The motivation for Russia's foreign policy is protecting Russian interests.

    The motivation for Mexico's foreign policy is protecting Mexican interests.

    Etc, etc, etc...

    It is that simple. A country's foreign policy is designed to help protect it's national security interests and protect it's citizens way of life.
     
  5. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    ...... and then there is hegemony - militaristic, economic, trade, diplomatic, scientific, artistic, financial, etc. - which we (the USA) overwhelmingly engage in globally, historically, often unilaterally, and which many citizens and governments in Mexico and Peru and Sao Tome and Sweden and Niger, etc - may not even know the definition of, much less practice or dominate.

    ;)

    Thanks.
     
  6. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    davidhume:

    Oh yes. That is clearly part of our grand strategy, largely because we are in a position to make it so. That's what is meant by "hegemony". We inherited much of our strategic thinking from Great Britian (which is why our Navy and Naval policy looks so much like theirs).

    For the British throughout the nineteenth century up through 1914, the LOCAL Thing That Must Not Happen was that a single European power would gain control over the Continent. That's why they fought Napolean, that's why they entered into alliances against the emergent German Empire after 1871, that's why a lot of things.

    Their fear was illustrated in strong light in 1940 after the fall of France when Britian found herself both protected by the English Channel but also in a difficult position to launch any sort of military attack on the Continent because of the need to cross the water. Yet England, to survive, needs free access to the sea for commercial shipping. Whoever holds ALL of the coasts of Northwestern Europe is well situated to close off that access, as Germany showed in two World Wars.

    Militarily and economically speaking, the United States is a kind of island power as well in that we, too, MUST maintain freedom of the seas to allow us to import and export vital materials, and not just oil, either. No country must ever become strong enough to shut off our seaborne commerce. It is, and has long been, generally considered desirable that the U.S. Navy be powerful and large enough to face the next two most powerful fleets combined. That was also British doctrine before 1914, when they could still afford it.

    That is also why we were so nervous about the rapid growth of the Soviet fleet; the Soviet Union was a LAND power. Although a warm water port was long a Russian dream, the Soviet Union did not actually require free access to the high seas to survive.

    Finally, our Naval requirements led directly to the United States creating the country of Panama from Colombian territory for the express purpose of building the Panama Canal. The need for the canal became agonizingly apparent during the War of 1898 when units of the Pacific Fleet had to sail through the Straits of Magellan at the tip of South America in order to be available in Cuba.

    Again, the British interest in the Eastern Mediterranean had a lot more to do with preserving their Suez Canal route to India than anthing else. Ditto Gibralter. Ditto Malta. And, of course, in the Far East, ditto Singapore and Hong Kong.

    That's actually what Viet Nam was really about, at least in part, and why everyone took the domino theory so seriously. The loss to the Soviet Bloc of our control over the various straits and waterways throughout Southeast Asia would have been a serious blow to our ability to defend ourselves. Worse, it would have placed our major ally, Japan, at the mercy of whomever controlled Singapore.

    NOTE please, that the U.S. Navy has now taken up more or less permanent residence in Singapore since the British left and we got kicked out of The Philippines. Speculation among Naval officers is that, although the base is SUPPOSED to available for use by all, WE are interested in it primarily as a base for operations against Communist China.

    China is our great trading opportunity, I know, but the more thoughtful members of our military establishment are making plans for war with China.

    They should be. War with Red China is, I think, significantly more likely than war with the old Soviet Union ever was. But that's another post.
     
  7. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

    What Motivates US Foreign Policy?

    For the current administration....poor CIA information or a desire to bend that information to meet their needs.
     
  8. davidhume

    davidhume New Member

    Nosbourne,

    A very fascinating post.

    Your comments about 'more thoughtful' members of the US military are already planning a war with China seems incredible. But then again, foreign policy of any country is just not controlled by the military (democratic countries I am talking about generally), but are balanced by the diplomatic, the trade, the politicans and other social and pressure groups. However, the ability of the military to produce a situation of fear is well documented and the possibility of war with the likes of China, for no reason, is not beyond the realms of possibility.

    I guess a dominant power like the US can forge a foreign policy which translates into proactive policies that maintain their dominance. Other countries perhaps adopt policies that both protect their interests, and those interests often have to fall within the interests of their dominant coalition partner (eg Australia in relation to America).

    I think I went through my own journey of disullusionment recently when in Vietnam. I noticed during my travels through Saigon the thriving small business community. I commented in this to several vietnamese from both the academic and business community, asking them how recently the vietnamese had gained property rights and the ability to do their own business. the response was 'always'! The only effects of the transition to a communist government was to clean up the corruption of government, redistribute rural land and establish communes. The effects of communism economically were mainly in the rural areas, and the city people benefited from less corruption in the city.

    My impressions from that visit was that the Us and their allies did a great disservice to the Vietnamese people through being involved in the war. Yes, communism and a progressive society and economy are basically inimical, but it lead me to question the price of wholesale destruction and devastation against what was basically an ideology.

    I fear for the attitude of the US to China. I have travelled extensively in China and find the 'man on the street' similar to what we are in the West - driven by the desire to do business, provide for our families, enjoy the good life and live in peace.

    My fear is that the economic progress of China will be regarded ( and it already is!) as a threat to the 'dominance' of the US and the US will, dressed up in the name of protecting some 'freedom' or patriotic retoric to justify military action, go to war with this country. This would be a tragedy.

    My travels and reexamination of history and philosophy is leading me to think that we as human beings have not moved very far beyond the cave and we are still in our very early stages of our evolutionary development. Force and faith still seem to be the dominant human traits, with our emotional intelligence still with a long way to catch up.
     
  9. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    There's probably a hierarchy of motivations. The way I imagine it, we will pursue a particular interest even at the cost of less pressing motives, but not if threatens more important ones.

    1. Addressing direct threats to us here at home. When the Cold War ended, the threat of a foreign power bringing war to our shores seemed to recede. But 9-11 put domestic security back squarely in the middle of the agenda. Nuclear proliferation in North Korea and elsewhere is troubling as well. The US will definitely go to war in self-defense and no other consideration possibly comes before this. The US isn't always the big soft teddy bear that the rest of the world is most comfortable with. If our lives are threatened, then we won't hesitate in showing our teeth.

    2. Addressing indirect threats to the rapidly globalizing system on which we depend. Foreign threats, not to our lives and communities, but to our economy and way of life, belong here. The US is less apt to go to war over #2 than it is over #1, and is more apt to try to act through alliances with other countries whose interests are similar to our own. Most of the industrialized world is dependent on the same raw materials. Defending free navigation on the world's seas is in all of our interests, as is preserving stable world economic markets and banking and monetary systems.

    3. Defending allies and their interests. How much we are willing to sacrifice on allies depends on the depth of the alliance with them, I guess. There are countries that we will back up, but not to the extent of threatening our own interests #1 or #2. But there are quite a few nations out there that we would go to war to defend, even if that war did threaten us here at home. Two world wars demonstrated that. We are formally committed to defend all of the NATO countries to that ultimate degree. Australia, Japan, Israel and some others are in the same class. I think that China's sabre rattling can be read in this light. By talking darkly of nukes, they are trying to bump the cost of US defense of Taiwan up to where it might (so Beijing hopes) exceed Taiwan's value to us. They hope that if they can convince us that defending Taiwan carries with it costs to the US homeland, ultimate consideration #1 will make us back down for fear of getting hurt.

    4. Finally the US is interested in spreading its values around the world. Democracy, individual freedom, women's emancipation and so on. But in promoting these things we probably wouldn't do anything to threaten #!, #2 or #3. Our venues for this kind of liberal evangelical work is mostly international organizations and the UN. We wouldn't be expected to go to war, or even to threaten the international system and our relationships with our closer allies over this kind of stuff. The US is very good at 'real politik', at looking the other way when it's in our interest to do so, witness Saudi Arabia. Tibet is a write-off in the name of cheap Chinese imports at Wal-Mart. (Hence China's hopes that we will write off Taiwan as well.) We did go to war over Bosnia or Kosovo, but they were exceptions, where human rights violations seemed particularly egregious and the cost of our intervention seemed invitingly low. But we sat on our hands while thousands of children in Sierra Leone had their hands cut off. The British sent the Royal Marines into Freetown and the under-equipped but valiant Nigerian army did truly excellent work under very trying conditions, trying to preserve civilization there. (Of course, Nigeria would like to be the big regional power in that area, so it wasn't entirely altruistic with them either.)
     
  10. davidhume

    davidhume New Member

    A very thoughful and thought provoking post, Bill. Thank you.

    You place the preservation of a US sea lanes on the same level of nation interest as the preservation of a sound world monetary system.

    Does this imply that the level of threat to the US is the same if they should face a direct threat to their navigation or a threat to the world monetary system, perhaps, for example, by China refusing to revalue or float their currency, jeopardising US trade and industry?

    This thought is frightening. What if China decided to go to war with the US over the massive subsidies that the US give to their grain farmers? I wonder how the US would respond to that logic?
     
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    No! No! NO!

    I may have misled you in my last post!

    When I said that the more thoughtful members of the military are planning on a war with China I did NOT mean that anybody WANTS such a war or believes that such a war is inevitable or imminent!

    What I MEANT to say is only that the threat is there and being planned for. That's what Singapore is probably about, though that government denies it emphatically.

    Certainly it is the duty of the military to be prepared for such an eventuality. I understand, in fact, that the President will be discussing the growth of the Chinese military in his next vivt to that country so even HE is thinking about it.
     
  12. The perfect combination is pursuit of our national interests combined with the moral high ground. For example, when we fought the first Gulf War both of these ingredients were in place (national interests - securing the oil supply in the Middle East; moral high ground - setting a torturing murdering aggressor back on his heels).

    Note that the same combination also existed against our enemies in WWII (Germany and Japan). In that war we were also securing our national interests while taking the moral high ground against atrocity, murder, torture, and inhumanities of all kinds - incidentally as prevalent in Japanese behavior during the war (e.g., the Rape of Nanking) as it was in the behavior of the Nazis in occupied territories.

    In Viet Nam, the equation was not present - there was a weak case for national interests, and an even weaker one for the moral high ground (since we were supporting a puppet/client state that was most certainly not representative of the majority of Vietnamese at that time - note South Viet Nam also engaged in state sanctioned torture, as did/does North Viet Nam).

    Against the Soviet Union, the case has also been strong - although there has always been a lot of noise surrounding it. National interests were clearly at stake, and those who really knew the extent of Stalin's crimes also had the moral high ground on their side. The issue is confused, though, because the premise of the Soviet Union was to form a government of the "little guy" against the big, bad exploiters - which in some contexts could be seen as moral high ground in its own right. Of course, we all know that vision was horribly sent off track, almost from the beginning, by Lenin and his successors - the most notable criminal of which was Josef Stalin.

    Long answer to a short question....
     
  13. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    US Foreign policy alternates idealistic periods with pragmatical ones. Right now they are just interested in maintaining US supremacy in the XXI Century.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Re: No! No! NO!

    FWIW, I understood that you were talking about the U.S. military's responsibility to plan for that sort of situation, not that you were suggesting they were doing so enthusiastically hoping their plans would come into use.

    -=Steve=-
     
  15. AGS

    AGS New Member

    Foriegn Policy Economic Benefit

    I have a different opinion on Vietnam and Korea .....

    The US came to Vietnam not for political ideological reasons but for economic and national security issues which was exaggerated ....


    Since the threat of facism deteriorated from europe; the rise of soviet communism became a new threat for US foriegn policy which depends on third world country for economici interests....

    Likewise the Soviet Union had greed for more european territories...

    Now here is the logic ....Look at CHINA now .....

    many corporations do buisness and recieve all of their manufacturing goods from China of cheap illegal labor and India .....

    China has the worse record for human rights and civil rights ....Yet the US corporations do buisness with Red China or the communist government ......

    Why send troops to Vietnam to stop communism when the future destined US corporations to do buisness and trade with the Communist Chinese government ....


    India is a another totalitarian government that dictates their population through class discrimination ..... Another avenue for cheap labor to maximize the profits from India .....

    It is double standard.... How can a nation profess democracy yet take advantage of the misery and suffering from another nation ....

    Is the US suppose to provide economical sanctions for these countries ? YES

    Is the US suppose to cut economical ties and trade with these countries ?YES

    Why ? these nations exploit their own citizens that strive for individual and economical rights .....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2005
  16. davidhume

    davidhume New Member

    Re: Foriegn Policy Economic Benefit

    It wasn't that long ago that the US discriminated badly against a part of their own population, with a gross abuse of human rights.

    Can you really link trade with the internal affairs of a country?
     
  17. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Re: Foriegn Policy Economic Benefit

    At the time of US involvement in Vietnam both the USSR and the PRC were quite expansionist and imperialistic. They called it Revolution and they attempted to spread it worldwide. They poured their cadres, or those of surrogates, into every area of the world they could. Vietnam is remembered while sundry pisspot wars/insurrections/whatever are forgotten along with their mountains of dead.

    But the revolutionary imperative faded in both communist redoubts and they turned more to the trade of goods than to the exportation of totalitarianism.
     

Share This Page