• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it time for America to forge a new foreign policy?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'll admit that some of the direction our foreign policy has been going is somewhat troubling. Russia has recalled its ambassador to the U.S. (Russia recalls envoy after Biden remarks about Putin - BBC News), and relations with China also appear to be getting colder these days. (Troubled US-China ties face new test in Alaska meeting (apnews.com))

I've always been rather critical of US foreign policy, along with the mindsets and perceptions which lead to some of the curious things we do. It also appears to be related to the US public generally being perceived as ignorant to world geography and history, so much so that they can be easily led into supporting these policies.

We Americans may need to change our ways of looking at the world, as well as the way we look at ourselves. We think of ourselves as the good guys, the "white knights" going around and saving the world from itself. In contrast, our media and political leadership present an image of the outside world as if to make it appear as some violent, horrible, scary dystopia that only America can fix and save. Many of the leaders of the world are demonized and presented as caricatures or comic book supervillains. Much of the rhetoric is so unrealistic and spread on so thick as to become unbelievable.

What do we want to do in this world anyway? When America was founded, the Founders didn't really have any grandiose visions of "making the world safe for democracy," so what happened to us? In the early days, our leaders may have been just as malignant and atrocious in the mad rush for more land and profit, but at least it was limited to our own immediate vicinity - nowhere near the status of a global empire. It was definitely an "America First" policy in the raw, and we really made no bones about it either. However, since America was still in a developing stage and significantly weaker than the great powers of Europe, we wanted to keep out of European affairs and maintain a more neutral (but mutually profitable) relationship. Meanwhile, the various European powers squabbled with each other, while we could watch from a safe distance.

For a long time, that seemed to work out well from a US point of view. But things started to change as we got bigger and still had a bit of the expansionist greed as a major motivating factor in foreign policy. We thought that Cuba was ripe for the picking, being one of the last remnants of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. (We also formally annexed Hawaii that same year, as we pushed further into the Pacific.) The relatively short Spanish-American War netted us Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Cuba was granted nominal "independence," although they, like many other nations in the region, would fall under the thumb of US business interests backed by the power of the US military, whenever it might have been needed. The Philippines also thought they might become independent, but that was not to be. What we did to the Philippines was not only an atrocity and a crime against humanity, but it was one of the biggest mistakes we made which would lead to a major shift in US foreign policy. Now, we had a foothold in East Asia, which put us on the playing field with other colonial powers in the same region.

For the longest time, America's foreign policy rested on the idea of "no foreign entanglements," but it also included a strong support of "freedom of the seas," as that was vital to American commerce. Some of our earliest military forays (such as the war with the Barbary Pirates, the quasi-war with France, and the War of 1812) made it very clear to the rest of the world that we didn't want anyone messing with our ships on the high seas. The Monroe Doctrine also made it clear that we didn't want any outside powers messing around in our backyard, making us an early version of "NIMBY."

But by the end of the 19th century, our scope had expanded beyond these early considerations. Our relations with Britain were starting to warm and improve, and we began to see eye to eye more and more on how we looked at the world. We were temporary allies during the Boxer Rebellion, along with other colonial powers in the region. We also ostensibly shared similar concerns about Russian expansion in East Asia. We did not have good relations with either China or Russia at this point, and this likely influenced our perceptions of each other in later years. Meanwhile, the Japanese were angry at us over our mediation at the Treaty of Portsmouth where they thought we gave too much to the Russians in settling the Russo-Japanese War. The Germans also seemed to be getting restless and wanting to get their piece of the action as well.

Every nation at the time had its own particular version of nationalist sentiment which influenced their perceptions and policies. American patriotism as we know it today was in its halcyon years. But the First World War presented a dilemma, since we were still committed to the idea of no foreign entanglements. From our point of view, it was just another occasion where European nations squabbled with each other, so why should we bother with that? If they want to fight, let 'em fight. But the Germans were getting too aggressive with their unrestricted submarine warfare, which violated the principle of "freedom of the seas." Plus, they were accused of attempting to incite Mexico into going to war with the United States, which violated the Monroe Doctrine. So, we eventually joined the Allies in declaring war on Germany.

Another major factor in our entry to the war was Wilson's statement that we were "making the world safe for democracy." The Western Allies of Britain and France were considered free and democratic at that point (even despite what they were doing in their colonial empires), while Germany was seen as a militaristic, authoritarian state. But by the time of the US entry, even Russia had overthrown the Tsar and was now ruled by a democratically-elected Duma and Provisional Government (albeit in a very precarious and unstable political situation).

After the war, many might consider that another major blunder was in the US Senate's failure to ratify the US entry into the League of Nations, which we didn't do because we thought it would be a foreign entanglement which we weren't ready to take on. However, we did sign and ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact, in which we agreed to condemn the practice of aggressive war and wars of conquest. A rather noble, high-minded principle on the part of nations which had built up their empires and acquired great wealth by conquering other nations. Now, they were deciding that conquest and invading other nations was wrong.

Most people might consider that World War 2 was the major turning point in US foreign policy, coupled with the idea that "there was no turning back." We were no longer second-stringers or bit players. We were fully on the playing field, center stage, achieving "superpower" status. This is when everything changed, and modern ideas about US foreign policy were formed - and the same basic framework still exists.

Russia and China were our allies during that war, but it was an uneasy alliance. We didn't like each that much, but we were willing to set aside our differences to fight against the common enemy. Allies of convenience, but at least it was something to try to build some sort of working relationship.

In that sense, the Cold War was real, but our pretexts for engaging in it were fraudulent. That was proven when they fired Patton and MacArthur, but our policymakers apparently wanted to engineer a policy of anti-communist "containment" loosely justified on the idea of "making the world safe for democracy," which Wilson had proclaimed back in WW1. But they couldn't just do it, at least not in the way that Patton and MacArthur might have advocated. After all, we made an earlier pledge to condemn aggressive warfare, so we couldn't just go off and invade like we did in the past. We had to make it look "legitimate" somehow, using proxies and puppets, turning the former colonial world into pawns which were nominally "independent," yet under the thumb of outside powers.

Even setting aside the moral implications of gunboat diplomacy, forcefully exerting hegemony on other nations, interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, and engaging in proxy and/or interventionist wars, I would say that, overall, this policy has had mixed results. It has been prohibitively expensive, too, creating a massive drain on our economy. Whatever gains we might have made come nowhere near offsetting the losses we've incurred. Our standing in the world has diminished greatly when we were at our peak at the end of WW2.

It's really a shame that we couldn't come to terms with our allies, Russia and China, at the end of WW2. The entire course of world affairs could have changed if only we had reached out in friendship. We could have avoided a wasteful and fiscally irresponsible arms race. We could have avoided nuclear brinkmanship and the fear of world-wide destruction. We could have avoided so many hot wars which we got caught up in around the world. It also had noticeable internal effects as well, as Americans became more cynical and jaded. We didn't really learn much about the world in all this time. All we seem to know now is that everyone hates us, and we can't even fathom or understand why.

And true to form, even though communism doesn't seem to be the grave threat it once was, we still have tense relations with both China and Russia at present.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
{continued from first post}

But what are our choices at this point? What should our foreign policy goals and objectives actually be?

Should we go back to "America First" and No Foreign Entanglements? That would solve a lot of problems quickly, but it might create many others in the process.

Should we continue with business as usual, with continued hostile rhetoric and saber-rattling with China and Russia, and hope for the best? America would not be able to fight alone against China and Russia; it would need the help of NATO, Japan, and other key allies around the world. But it would be a foolish prospect just the same, considering the possibility of such a war going nuclear.

Is it possible to send out an olive branch to China and Russia? Can anyone see the possibility of peaceful coexistence with either of these countries, or are we doomed to always be at odds with each other?

What about the rest of the world? Could India be a potential ally against China and Russia? Should we continue interfering in the affairs of the Middle East? What about Africa? There's a lot of instability, war, and suffering on that continent, yet I'm not sure if there's really much we can do about it.

At this point, I think America's best bet would be to shift the focus more to our own region. We should try to heal and improve relations with our neighbors to the south. We should focus our aid and investment on to our own hemisphere, patch up relations with Cuba, Venezuela, and others we've had tangles with. We should work to bolster and enhance the scope of the OAS and form a stronger economic alliance which could be made into a formidable power bloc in dealing with the rest of the world. Of course, we wouldn't abandon NATO or our other allies in the world, but it would put us in a better bargaining position when dealing with China or Russia.

As for China and Russia, we might have to agree to disagree about certain things. Since going to war with them is out of the question, we have to deal with them on some sort of coherent level. Better relations with China and Russia could be instrumental in helping to neutralize countries we see as "rogue nations," such as North Korea and Iran.

One thing appears certain: We can't allow our relations with these countries to deteriorate any further. If we do, then we will probably find ourselves in an even more disagreeable situation than we are facing at present. At the very least, for those who are hellbent on maintaining the global status quo of Pax Americana, then we're going to need to shore up our defenses and close up our soft spots, but we're not really doing that either.

In short, the course we're taking here almost seems suicidal. We have to shift directions. We need to change our way of looking at the world.

Thoughts?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
What do you assume about China and Russia? That is a part of it. What is a rational foreign policy ends in part in what rational is and not just for you.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'll admit that some of the direction our foreign policy has been going is somewhat troubling. Russia has recalled its ambassador to the U.S. (Russia recalls envoy after Biden remarks about Putin - BBC News), and relations with China also appear to be getting colder these days. (Troubled US-China ties face new test in Alaska meeting (apnews.com))

I've always been rather critical of US foreign policy, along with the mindsets and perceptions which lead to some of the curious things we do. It also appears to be related to the US public generally being perceived as ignorant to world geography and history, so much so that they can be easily led into supporting these policies.

We Americans may need to change our ways of looking at the world, as well as the way we look at ourselves. We think of ourselves as the good guys, the "white knights" going around and saving the world from itself. In contrast, our media and political leadership present an image of the outside world as if to make it appear as some violent, horrible, scary dystopia that only America can fix and save. Many of the leaders of the world are demonized and presented as caricatures or comic book supervillains. Much of the rhetoric is so unrealistic and spread on so thick as to become unbelievable.

What do we want to do in this world anyway? When America was founded, the Founders didn't really have any grandiose visions of "making the world safe for democracy," so what happened to us? In the early days, our leaders may have been just as malignant and atrocious in the mad rush for more land and profit, but at least it was limited to our own immediate vicinity - nowhere near the status of a global empire. It was definitely an "America First" policy in the raw, and we really made no bones about it either. However, since America was still in a developing stage and significantly weaker than the great powers of Europe, we wanted to keep out of European affairs and maintain a more neutral (but mutually profitable) relationship. Meanwhile, the various European powers squabbled with each other, while we could watch from a safe distance.

For a long time, that seemed to work out well from a US point of view. But things started to change as we got bigger and still had a bit of the expansionist greed as a major motivating factor in foreign policy. We thought that Cuba was ripe for the picking, being one of the last remnants of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. (We also formally annexed Hawaii that same year, as we pushed further into the Pacific.) The relatively short Spanish-American War netted us Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Cuba was granted nominal "independence," although they, like many other nations in the region, would fall under the thumb of US business interests backed by the power of the US military, whenever it might have been needed. The Philippines also thought they might become independent, but that was not to be. What we did to the Philippines was not only an atrocity and a crime against humanity, but it was one of the biggest mistakes we made which would lead to a major shift in US foreign policy. Now, we had a foothold in East Asia, which put us on the playing field with other colonial powers in the same region.

For the longest time, America's foreign policy rested on the idea of "no foreign entanglements," but it also included a strong support of "freedom of the seas," as that was vital to American commerce. Some of our earliest military forays (such as the war with the Barbary Pirates, the quasi-war with France, and the War of 1812) made it very clear to the rest of the world that we didn't want anyone messing with our ships on the high seas. The Monroe Doctrine also made it clear that we didn't want any outside powers messing around in our backyard, making us an early version of "NIMBY."

But by the end of the 19th century, our scope had expanded beyond these early considerations. Our relations with Britain were starting to warm and improve, and we began to see eye to eye more and more on how we looked at the world. We were temporary allies during the Boxer Rebellion, along with other colonial powers in the region. We also ostensibly shared similar concerns about Russian expansion in East Asia. We did not have good relations with either China or Russia at this point, and this likely influenced our perceptions of each other in later years. Meanwhile, the Japanese were angry at us over our mediation at the Treaty of Portsmouth where they thought we gave too much to the Russians in settling the Russo-Japanese War. The Germans also seemed to be getting restless and wanting to get their piece of the action as well.

Every nation at the time had its own particular version of nationalist sentiment which influenced their perceptions and policies. American patriotism as we know it today was in its halcyon years. But the First World War presented a dilemma, since we were still committed to the idea of no foreign entanglements. From our point of view, it was just another occasion where European nations squabbled with each other, so why should we bother with that? If they want to fight, let 'em fight. But the Germans were getting too aggressive with their unrestricted submarine warfare, which violated the principle of "freedom of the seas." Plus, they were accused of attempting to incite Mexico into going to war with the United States, which violated the Monroe Doctrine. So, we eventually joined the Allies in declaring war on Germany.

Another major factor in our entry to the war was Wilson's statement that we were "making the world safe for democracy." The Western Allies of Britain and France were considered free and democratic at that point (even despite what they were doing in their colonial empires), while Germany was seen as a militaristic, authoritarian state. But by the time of the US entry, even Russia had overthrown the Tsar and was now ruled by a democratically-elected Duma and Provisional Government (albeit in a very precarious and unstable political situation).

After the war, many might consider that another major blunder was in the US Senate's failure to ratify the US entry into the League of Nations, which we didn't do because we thought it would be a foreign entanglement which we weren't ready to take on. However, we did sign and ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact, in which we agreed to condemn the practice of aggressive war and wars of conquest. A rather noble, high-minded principle on the part of nations which had built up their empires and acquired great wealth by conquering other nations. Now, they were deciding that conquest and invading other nations was wrong.

Most people might consider that World War 2 was the major turning point in US foreign policy, coupled with the idea that "there was no turning back." We were no longer second-stringers or bit players. We were fully on the playing field, center stage, achieving "superpower" status. This is when everything changed, and modern ideas about US foreign policy were formed - and the same basic framework still exists.

Russia and China were our allies during that war, but it was an uneasy alliance. We didn't like each that much, but we were willing to set aside our differences to fight against the common enemy. Allies of convenience, but at least it was something to try to build some sort of working relationship.

In that sense, the Cold War was real, but our pretexts for engaging in it were fraudulent. That was proven when they fired Patton and MacArthur, but our policymakers apparently wanted to engineer a policy of anti-communist "containment" loosely justified on the idea of "making the world safe for democracy," which Wilson had proclaimed back in WW1. But they couldn't just do it, at least not in the way that Patton and MacArthur might have advocated. After all, we made an earlier pledge to condemn aggressive warfare, so we couldn't just go off and invade like we did in the past. We had to make it look "legitimate" somehow, using proxies and puppets, turning the former colonial world into pawns which were nominally "independent," yet under the thumb of outside powers.

Even setting aside the moral implications of gunboat diplomacy, forcefully exerting hegemony on other nations, interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, and engaging in proxy and/or interventionist wars, I would say that, overall, this policy has had mixed results. It has been prohibitively expensive, too, creating a massive drain on our economy. Whatever gains we might have made come nowhere near offsetting the losses we've incurred. Our standing in the world has diminished greatly when we were at our peak at the end of WW2.

It's really a shame that we couldn't come to terms with our allies, Russia and China, at the end of WW2. The entire course of world affairs could have changed if only we had reached out in friendship. We could have avoided a wasteful and fiscally irresponsible arms race. We could have avoided nuclear brinkmanship and the fear of world-wide destruction. We could have avoided so many hot wars which we got caught up in around the world. It also had noticeable internal effects as well, as Americans became more cynical and jaded. We didn't really learn much about the world in all this time. All we seem to know now is that everyone hates us, and we can't even fathom or understand why.

And true to form, even though communism doesn't seem to be the grave threat it once was, we still have tense relations with both China and Russia at present.

Very one sided.
And BTW, re Philipoines-
Yes, atrocities, yes, imperialism.

But, the Japanese had just taken
Taiwan, the Philippines had just been
stripped of the dubious shelter Spain
afforded. Abandoning the PI
after kicking out the Soanish would
have been a huge geopolitical error.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Very one sided.
And BTW, re Philipoines-
Yes, atrocities, yes, imperialism.

But, the Japanese had just taken
Taiwan, the Philippines had just been
stripped of the dubious shelter Spain
afforded. Abandoning the PI
after kicking out the Soanish would
have been a huge geopolitical error.

Yeah, real life politics. :D
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you assume about China and Russia? That is a part of it. What is a rational foreign policy ends in part in what rational is and not just for you.

I would assume that they will pursue their national interests and national security aspirations just as we have done. If we dealt with them on that level, at least in a more honest and forthright manner, it would be a lot more practical and rational than what we're doing now.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'd rather America goes back to a responsive role rather then this offensive role as worlds policeman.

The only reason I suspect is there must be an arms and technology race ongoing that's not being disclosed to the public. The offensive behavior might to keep things in check to avoid a more costly war with a regime much stronger than if it hadn't been in check.

Honestly though, I think this ought to be a matter for the UN to determine with other allies.

The point is, we don't want another overpowered rouge nation on another quest to conquer to world.

Remember, Nazi Germany almost won.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I would assume that they will pursue their national interests and national security aspirations just as we have done. If we dealt with them on that level, at least in a more honest and forthright manner, it would be a lot more practical and rational than what we're doing now.

So what if their national interest is to get as much international powers as possible. You can't assume that they think like you and behave like you.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I'd rather America goes back to a responsive role rather then this offensive role as worlds policeman.

The only reason I suspect is there must be an arms and technology race ongoing that's not being disclosed to the public. The offensive behavior might to keep things in check to avoid a more costly war with a regime much stronger than if it hadn't been in check.

Honestly though I think this ought to be a matter for the UN to determine with other allies.

There is no UN in the sense you use it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Very one sided.

Well, naturally, since I was addressing the issue of American foreign policy, it would have an American point of view. Certainly, I'm interested in hearing the Chinese point of view as well. I'm not closed-minded, if that's what you're trying to imply here.

And BTW, re Philipoines-
Yes, atrocities, yes, imperialism.

Yes.

But, the Japanese had just taken
Taiwan, the Philippines had just been
stripped of the dubious shelter Spain
afforded. Abandoning the PI
after kicking out the Soanish would
have been a huge geopolitical error.

Are you suggesting the Japanese would have taken over the Philippines if they were granted independence instead of being occupied by the US? It's entirely possible that they could have been made a protectorate, as other nations operating in the region (Britain, France, Holland) would also have a strong interest in keeping the Japanese out of the Philippines. In contrast, the US had a smaller stake in the region at that early juncture.

It would have only been a geopolitical error if the US truly had any real desire in messing around in East Asia, although that, in and of itself, may have been an even bigger error. What if the US had stayed out of the Philippines and didn't participate in the Boxer Rebellion? What if we stayed out of Asia altogether and just stopped at Hawaii?

The US and Britain appeared pleased with the fact that the Japanese prevented Russian expansionism into Korea, and we were ostensibly content with Japanese control over Taiwan and Korea at the time. Maybe that, too, was a geopolitical blunder, but we were getting to the point where our reach was exceeding our grasp. Britain also seemed more concerned with matters closer to home, while America sent old Indian fighters to tame the Filipinos into submission. I recall an article written by Mark Twain where he was particularly incensed by the whole situation. As you said, it was an imperialistic atrocity, which can neither be forgiven nor forgotten. But we somehow still manage to move on just the same.

However, I'm not sure what your view here is. You agree that the US occupation of the Philippines was an atrocity, and yet, you're saying it would have been a serious mistake if we didn't do that? I guess the only other option would have been to let the Spanish keep it, but they were hardly in a position to defend it if the Japanese did want to take it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So what if their national interest is to get as much international powers as possible. You can't assume that they think like you and behave like you.

I never said that they would think like us or behave like us - although there may be some similarities in human nature which can be discerned in all of us.

What if their national interest is to get as much international power as possible? Is that what America's national interest has been? We and our Western European allies had much of the rest of the world already sewn up and under control, to some extent or another. We had hegemony over Latin America, while Britain and France had control over most of Africa and large chunks of the Middle East and South Asia. After Germany and Japan were defeated, the only countries which could prevent our total takeover the world were China and Russia, who didn't take well to the idea of being ruled by other nations. Go figure. They were on the defensive, having endured horrific invasions and occupations by the Japanese and the Germans, while the US remained virtually untouched and ready to move in and take the prize of total world domination.

I don't know if they want to have as much international power as possible, but maybe they want an equal piece of the action. Perhaps a balance of power and a sharing of the hegemony. We don't want to give them anything, based in the belief that if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

So, you're right in that we can't assume that they will think like us and behave like us, but by the same token, we can't assume that they will think like Hitler or behave like Hitler, which seems to be the apparent view of Western policymakers nowadays. Whatever Putin and Xi might be, I don't think they're Hitler.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Well, naturally, since I was addressing the issue of American foreign policy, it would have an American point of view. Certainly, I'm interested in hearing the Chinese point of view as well. I'm not closed-minded, if that's what you're trying to imply here.



Yes.



Are you suggesting the Japanese would have taken over the Philippines if they were granted independence instead of being occupied by the US? It's entirely possible that they could have been made a protectorate, as other nations operating in the region (Britain, France, Holland) would also have a strong interest in keeping the Japanese out of the Philippines. In contrast, the US had a smaller stake in the region at that early juncture.

It would have only been a geopolitical error if the US truly had any real desire in messing around in East Asia, although that, in and of itself, may have been an even bigger error. What if the US had stayed out of the Philippines and didn't participate in the Boxer Rebellion? What if we stayed out of Asia altogether and just stopped at Hawaii?

The US and Britain appeared pleased with the fact that the Japanese prevented Russian expansionism into Korea, and we were ostensibly content with Japanese control over Taiwan and Korea at the time. Maybe that, too, was a geopolitical blunder, but we were getting to the point where our reach was exceeding our grasp. Britain also seemed more concerned with matters closer to home, while America sent old Indian fighters to tame the Filipinos into submission. I recall an article written by Mark Twain where he was particularly incensed by the whole situation. As you said, it was an imperialistic atrocity, which can neither be forgiven nor forgotten. But we somehow still manage to move on just the same.

However, I'm not sure what your view here is. You agree that the US occupation of the Philippines was an atrocity, and yet, you're saying it would have been a serious mistake if we didn't do that? I guess the only other option would have been to let the Spanish keep it, but they were hardly in a position to defend it if the Japanese did want to take it.

Your argument is against the
projection of American power,
entirely one sided.
I am not speaking from a Chinese pov
to make that obvious observation.

I absolutely did not say Amrrican
intervention was an atrocity.
All wars involve atrocities.
I know about what happened in Samar.
I know someone whose grandfather was
bayonetted by Japanese in Leyte. Talk of
children skewered in the air.
My family was in HK when the Japanese
arrived. I won't speak of that.
Americans are angels by comparison.

Philippines is a hundred languages, a
thousand islands, had very little organization
and agricultural tools for weapons.

Japan had begun their imperialist
expansion. Leaving the PI ripe
and unplucked? An insult to
Japanese intelligence.

Proceed to argue they should have
been unhindered, to America's advantage
and the rest of east Asia.

Now, personally, I find the Americans a
bit much sometimes but I want them as
the reigning superpower.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...Is it possible to send out an olive branch to China and Russia? Can anyone see the possibility of peaceful coexistence with either of these countries, or are we doomed to always be at odds with each other?...
We, the people of the USA, China and Russia, all want the same thing. We want to live in a safe world with a high quality of life for all. So, we can isolate the problem to our governments. None of the three have a government that isn't ineffective, corrupted, or both. In fact, such a thing has yet to be invented,

IMO, the first thing to be done, before we can find a solution to problems, foreign or domestic, is to recognize that the decision-making processes that we call "governments" are relics of the past and need to be replaced.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
@Stevicus considering the two opening posts, I want to mention something I often bring up. WWII made many, many US citizens believe that Satan was real, was actively involved in world politics. You seem not to notice, but this has had and still has a major impact on US politics. A lot of us believe Satan is behind pro-choice, that Satan is behind ERA, that Satan is behind communism. The confluence of Nazism and the massacres of the communists has greatly strengthened this belief. This is significant, not insignificant. I don't think you can afford to leave it out of your summary of the situation. Many of us believe evil exists, that it is out there trying to destroy good, not just philosophically but actively.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
But America is one of the main sources of evil, the largest by far arms exporter in the world etc etc etc
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
I'll admit that some of the direction our foreign policy has been going is somewhat troubling. Russia has recalled its ambassador to the U.S. (Russia recalls envoy after Biden remarks about Putin - BBC News), and relations with China also appear to be getting colder these days. (Troubled US-China ties face new test in Alaska meeting (apnews.com))

I've always been rather critical of US foreign policy, along with the mindsets and perceptions which lead to some of the curious things we do. It also appears to be related to the US public generally being perceived as ignorant to world geography and history, so much so that they can be easily led into supporting these policies.

We Americans may need to change our ways of looking at the world, as well as the way we look at ourselves. We think of ourselves as the good guys, the "white knights" going around and saving the world from itself. In contrast, our media and political leadership present an image of the outside world as if to make it appear as some violent, horrible, scary dystopia that only America can fix and save. Many of the leaders of the world are demonized and presented as caricatures or comic book supervillains. Much of the rhetoric is so unrealistic and spread on so thick as to become unbelievable.

What do we want to do in this world anyway? When America was founded, the Founders didn't really have any grandiose visions of "making the world safe for democracy," so what happened to us? In the early days, our leaders may have been just as malignant and atrocious in the mad rush for more land and profit, but at least it was limited to our own immediate vicinity - nowhere near the status of a global empire. It was definitely an "America First" policy in the raw, and we really made no bones about it either. However, since America was still in a developing stage and significantly weaker than the great powers of Europe, we wanted to keep out of European affairs and maintain a more neutral (but mutually profitable) relationship. Meanwhile, the various European powers squabbled with each other, while we could watch from a safe distance.

For a long time, that seemed to work out well from a US point of view. But things started to change as we got bigger and still had a bit of the expansionist greed as a major motivating factor in foreign policy. We thought that Cuba was ripe for the picking, being one of the last remnants of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. (We also formally annexed Hawaii that same year, as we pushed further into the Pacific.) The relatively short Spanish-American War netted us Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Cuba was granted nominal "independence," although they, like many other nations in the region, would fall under the thumb of US business interests backed by the power of the US military, whenever it might have been needed. The Philippines also thought they might become independent, but that was not to be. What we did to the Philippines was not only an atrocity and a crime against humanity, but it was one of the biggest mistakes we made which would lead to a major shift in US foreign policy. Now, we had a foothold in East Asia, which put us on the playing field with other colonial powers in the same region.

For the longest time, America's foreign policy rested on the idea of "no foreign entanglements," but it also included a strong support of "freedom of the seas," as that was vital to American commerce. Some of our earliest military forays (such as the war with the Barbary Pirates, the quasi-war with France, and the War of 1812) made it very clear to the rest of the world that we didn't want anyone messing with our ships on the high seas. The Monroe Doctrine also made it clear that we didn't want any outside powers messing around in our backyard, making us an early version of "NIMBY."

But by the end of the 19th century, our scope had expanded beyond these early considerations. Our relations with Britain were starting to warm and improve, and we began to see eye to eye more and more on how we looked at the world. We were temporary allies during the Boxer Rebellion, along with other colonial powers in the region. We also ostensibly shared similar concerns about Russian expansion in East Asia. We did not have good relations with either China or Russia at this point, and this likely influenced our perceptions of each other in later years. Meanwhile, the Japanese were angry at us over our mediation at the Treaty of Portsmouth where they thought we gave too much to the Russians in settling the Russo-Japanese War. The Germans also seemed to be getting restless and wanting to get their piece of the action as well.

Every nation at the time had its own particular version of nationalist sentiment which influenced their perceptions and policies. American patriotism as we know it today was in its halcyon years. But the First World War presented a dilemma, since we were still committed to the idea of no foreign entanglements. From our point of view, it was just another occasion where European nations squabbled with each other, so why should we bother with that? If they want to fight, let 'em fight. But the Germans were getting too aggressive with their unrestricted submarine warfare, which violated the principle of "freedom of the seas." Plus, they were accused of attempting to incite Mexico into going to war with the United States, which violated the Monroe Doctrine. So, we eventually joined the Allies in declaring war on Germany.

Another major factor in our entry to the war was Wilson's statement that we were "making the world safe for democracy." The Western Allies of Britain and France were considered free and democratic at that point (even despite what they were doing in their colonial empires), while Germany was seen as a militaristic, authoritarian state. But by the time of the US entry, even Russia had overthrown the Tsar and was now ruled by a democratically-elected Duma and Provisional Government (albeit in a very precarious and unstable political situation).

After the war, many might consider that another major blunder was in the US Senate's failure to ratify the US entry into the League of Nations, which we didn't do because we thought it would be a foreign entanglement which we weren't ready to take on. However, we did sign and ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact, in which we agreed to condemn the practice of aggressive war and wars of conquest. A rather noble, high-minded principle on the part of nations which had built up their empires and acquired great wealth by conquering other nations. Now, they were deciding that conquest and invading other nations was wrong.

Most people might consider that World War 2 was the major turning point in US foreign policy, coupled with the idea that "there was no turning back." We were no longer second-stringers or bit players. We were fully on the playing field, center stage, achieving "superpower" status. This is when everything changed, and modern ideas about US foreign policy were formed - and the same basic framework still exists.

Russia and China were our allies during that war, but it was an uneasy alliance. We didn't like each that much, but we were willing to set aside our differences to fight against the common enemy. Allies of convenience, but at least it was something to try to build some sort of working relationship.

In that sense, the Cold War was real, but our pretexts for engaging in it were fraudulent. That was proven when they fired Patton and MacArthur, but our policymakers apparently wanted to engineer a policy of anti-communist "containment" loosely justified on the idea of "making the world safe for democracy," which Wilson had proclaimed back in WW1. But they couldn't just do it, at least not in the way that Patton and MacArthur might have advocated. After all, we made an earlier pledge to condemn aggressive warfare, so we couldn't just go off and invade like we did in the past. We had to make it look "legitimate" somehow, using proxies and puppets, turning the former colonial world into pawns which were nominally "independent," yet under the thumb of outside powers.

Even setting aside the moral implications of gunboat diplomacy, forcefully exerting hegemony on other nations, interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, and engaging in proxy and/or interventionist wars, I would say that, overall, this policy has had mixed results. It has been prohibitively expensive, too, creating a massive drain on our economy. Whatever gains we might have made come nowhere near offsetting the losses we've incurred. Our standing in the world has diminished greatly when we were at our peak at the end of WW2.

It's really a shame that we couldn't come to terms with our allies, Russia and China, at the end of WW2. The entire course of world affairs could have changed if only we had reached out in friendship. We could have avoided a wasteful and fiscally irresponsible arms race. We could have avoided nuclear brinkmanship and the fear of world-wide destruction. We could have avoided so many hot wars which we got caught up in around the world. It also had noticeable internal effects as well, as Americans became more cynical and jaded. We didn't really learn much about the world in all this time. All we seem to know now is that everyone hates us, and we can't even fathom or understand why.

And true to form, even though communism doesn't seem to be the grave threat it once was, we still have tense relations with both China and Russia at present.


Well Biden has been committing forgery his entire life, he may as well forge a new foreign policy.
 
Top