Category Archives: Foreign Relations

America’s New Policy of Containment

02 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, The Americas

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,


Surprisingly, Romney and Obama portray U.S.-Israeli relations as an all or nothing game. Even thought here is a full spectrum of stances towards Israel, Romney’s relations to Netanyahu appear extremely tight. Romney has said and shown through visits to Israel during his campaign his closeness to the nation and has also said that he would keep all options of diplomatic pressure on the table.  This implies that he would support Israel in a military attack on Iran. Conversely, Obama refused to even meet with Netanyahu when he came to New York for the UN General Assembly and has failed to mediate Israeli-Palestinian discussions for over two years now.

To understand the importance of the Israeli alliance with the United States, it is important to first understand the history of this alliance. This alliance was born out of a common enemy during the Cold War: the U.S.S.R. Anti-communist Israel proved an important alliance in the United States’ containment policy.

Throughout the past few decades, Israel has served as a force to counter-act anti-American hostility in the Middle East. Of course, this alliance has not come without significant costs. First of all, economically, foreign aid to Israel costs the United States about $3 billion per year. Secondly, America’s support for Israel has been damaging to the U.S. at times when Israel has acted against the will of the United States. For example, in 1967, Israel spurred Middle Eastern hanger against the U.S. and Israel when it took the currently disputed Palestinian territories. At the moment, it seems prepared to threaten the Middle East with war with a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

So, what does this mean for the future? Right now, improving relations with Israel could not be more critical. The Arab Springs have ended a generation of American puppet dictators in the Middle East and replaced them with populist Islamist group who support terrorist organizations. Undoubtedly, the United States should support democracy and democratic values like freedom of expression, petition, and assembly.  After all, these are the same values that led to the creation of the U.S. However, the U.S. should value Western-friendliness and a commitment to counterterrorism over democracy or rather, in the case of the Middle Eastern Arab Spring cases, populism. Just as in the Cold War, Israel can contain this dangerous new ideology.

On Iran, too the United States needs to cooperate with Israel. This is not to say that the U.S. should be working with Israel. It simply means that the U.S. should organize discussions with Israel to ensure that there is no discrepancy between the two nations. This will make sure that the Iran issue will not end strong Israeli-American relations.

In normal times, the United States should take a neutral stance towards Israel in order to better mediate an agreement between Israel and Palestine. However, the situation in the Middle East is anything but normal and America’s response should be appropriate to the situation.

About these ads

Obama’s Three Pronged Foreign Policy Platform

29 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, Foreign Relations, The Americas

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,


The foreign policy debate went poorly for Obama. Polls placed him around equal to Romney on debate performance, but that simply will not cut it. In order to make up for the devastation of the first debate focusing on economy, Obama had to sweep the foreign policy debate by a huge margin. This is especially true considering that foreign policy is touted as Obama’s strong suit. Romney sabotaged Obama’s plans, though, by projecting a false level of similarity to Obama’s foreign policy platform and by purposely steering the debate towards the economy.

However, there may be a silver lining for Obama in regards to foreign policy. The foreign policy situations in the Middle East have lined up in such a way that Obama could make some key foreign policy decisions to revitalize his campaign.

Washington has currently reached the limit of sanctions in Iran. Already sanctions are crippling the economy and yet the result is that Ahmadinejad continues his nuclear armament while his citizens’ quality of life continues to dampen under these sanctions. In a recent poll from The Foreign Policy Initiative, 62% of Americans said that they would be willing to go to any lengths, including military action, to keep Iran nuclear-free. Obama should capitalize on this and launch a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.

Syria has reached the breaking point. Although the majority of Americans currently oppose military intervention in Syria, this is largely because they have been fed rhetoric for months on why the situation in Syria makes military ventures like a no-fly zone more difficult than it was in Libya. Although the violence in Syria is much more intense than it was in Libya, the situations are relatively similar and it should be just as easy to launch military intervention. After all, by this point, even Russia and Iran have reduced aid to al-Assad significantly and the regime appears to be on its last legs. Thus, Obama should begin orchestrating a no-fly zone over Syria with cooperation from NATO allies.

Lebanon continues to be a major threat to Middle Eastern stability. Clashes between pro-al Assad forces and pro-rebel forces have leaked beyond the Syrian border and currently threaten the stability of Lebanon in the future. Hezbollah also offers a major obstacle to a Middle East Peace Plan involving a two-state solution. Military intervention in Lebanon will be the trickiest of the three as the United States does not have very strong grounds for such intervention. Though, Middle Eastern nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia pulling for the U.S. to intervene in Syria would likely agree to reciprocate such intervention with assisting the United States in restoring order to Lebanon.

Throughout history, war has unified citizens and sparked nationalism. After all, even George W. Bush experienced approval ratings of over 90% just after declaring the War on Terror. Now, normally it would be completely unjustifiable for a presidential candidate to make a major decision that will impact the future of a country’s policy just days before an election. However, one key factor justifies Obama taking such action. Military intervention in Syria and Iran is almost guaranteed within a six-month timeframe anyways. After all, despite the most crippling of sanctions, Iran continues to pursue nuclear armament and Syria’s al-Assad regime has only increased the intensity of killing citizens. Lebanon seems relatively stable at the moment but its stability is being jeopardized in parallel to that of Syria albeit with a lag of about a year and a half. Thus, military intervention in Lebanon will soon prove vital as well.

Brokering a Middle East Peace Plan: Qatar’s Specialty

26 Friday Oct 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, The Americas

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,


Qatar is a land of contrasts. It supports autocratic rule at home, but it financially and militarily supports other Middle Easterners protesting against their governments. It consistently works to strengthen alliances with European and North American nations while also pledging $400 million in foreign aid to terrorist group Hamas. It is precisely because of these supposed hypocrisies that Qatar should be the leading mediator in international conflicts, particularly in regards to the Israel-Palestine issue.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the United States should be the broker of Middle Eastern peace. Obama himself iterated that in recent history, the U.S. has been the only force capable of bringing Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table. Yet, Israel and Palestine are currently no closer to an agreement than they were when Obama took office. If anything, relations between the two nations are more tense. Palestine and Israel have not negotiated for over two years now.

Qatar would be a more suitable broker of peace than the United States for two key reasons. First, it has a direct stake in Middle Eastern stability. As an oil exporter, Qatar is heavily invested in ensuring peace and thus open markets for all of its importers and potential importers. A politically stable and economically prosperous Palestine and Israel would be a major benefit to Qatar.

Secondly, Qatar would be an ideal moderator for a Middle East Peace Plan because it is unbiased in the issue. As mentioned before, Qatar’s Emir recently made a trip to Palestine where he pledged $400 million in foreign aid to the Hamas group ruling the country. At the same time, Qatar has constantly maintained contact with Israel and established economic alliances with its leaders. Qatar is one of a select few nations that maintains strong alliances with both parties involved in this issue and would therefore be able to bring both sides to the negotiating table.

Perhaps Romney summarized it best when he said during the campaign trail that in regards to the Israel-Palestine issue, the United States can do nothing but kick the can down the road. The issue is that America and Americans are self-interested especially in foreign policy. Without any tangible benefits to themselves, Americans rarely devote time or resources to important international issues. The United States would not benefit from an Israeli-Palestinian compromise; they would only benefit from a one-state solution under Israel given their extensive alliance with and resources invested in Israel. Qatar, on the other hand, is relatively unbiased in this issue, has direct benefits to act, and has suitable resources to facilitate an agreement between both parties. It’s a no brainer.

Mali: America’s Skeleton in the Closet

24 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Africa, Foreign Relations, The Americas, War

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


Contrary to what Barack Obama and Mitt Romney said on Tuesday’s debate, the greatest foreign policy issue for the United States is not a nuclear Iran nor is it the United States’ own fiscal woes. The greatest foreign policy issue that the United States faces is an Al Qaeda jihadist coalition’s control of an area the size of France in Mali.

Barack Obama likes to stress the role that he played in combatting terrorism during his term. Specifically, he consistently brings up the example of ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden. Yes, this move helped Americans to gain closure over the 9/11 attacks. However, killing Osama Bin Laden did little to advance US counterterrorism interests. In fact, Al Qaeda, with its newfound power over Mali, is stronger now than it ever was under Bin Laden.

The United States’ assistance is particularly important to intervention in Mali precisely because United Nations’ action has thus far been extremely weak. The United Nations seeks to rest the Mali’s future on the limited resources of Mali’s Western African neighbors. Such a plan is doomed to failure.

The issue, of course, is that many of the NATO nations that would typically lead such an international response are recovering from the political turnoil from the recently ended Iraq war and the soon to end Afghanistan War. Granted, in those cases, Western intervention was not required nor was it requested. However, Malians and the international community as a whole is currently requesting assistance in ousting the Al Qaeda government and Sharia law.

The United States has the military resources to coordinate an effective intervention in Mali. Now, the question arises. What benefit will the United States gain from such a conflict. The answer is complex, but in short, the U.S. will have very few benefits from intervention in Mali. Al Qaeda is a large network that is expanding at a rate faster than the United States can combat.

However, the United States has a duty to relinquish self-interest and work for international interest. This is the natural task of economic and military superpowers; even Britain fulfilled this task to an extent through imperialism, although some question the motives of Britain’s imperialist history. The international community has continually requested the United States to work as an international police, a responsibility that the United States has fulfilled for the most part over the past couple of decades.

Yet, the United States’ responsibility to tackle issues of common international interest are in question this election. Throughout the debates, Romney and Obama have seemed to agree that they would should focus on benefitting its economy and devising a foreign policy based on issues that directly impact the U.S. Both candidates appear to be embarking upon an imprudent path based solely on self-interest. The international community witnessed and experienced the effects of that type of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. It would be a true tragedy if the United States resorted to the foreign policies of the Cold War simply for economic benefit.

Model of the Arab Spring

07 Sunday Oct 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, Regime Change, The Americas

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,


Upon examining the great revolutions of history (such as the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution), a clear pattern emerges. The reactionary autocracy is replaced by a moderate government system which, in turn, is eventually overthrown for another reactionary autocracy. The Arab Springs can certainly be classified as Great Revolutions. In the definition of Great Revolutions, moderate Revolutions such as the American Revolution wherein the government structure remained similar, though, are exempted.

Of course, some nations managed to escape the typical model. Westernized nations managed to achieve democracy. However, an entirely different type of Revolution formed Western democracies.

The Revolutions that ended up instituting democracy or Republics were targeted revolts against the government system instead of specific leaders. In contrast, Egyptians, Tunisians, and Yemenis did not launch the Arab Springs because of the tyrannical government systems they faced. They overthrew specific leaders who they disliked mainly due to secularism and appeasement of the West.

In short, they overthrew Mubarak, Gaddhaffi and other oppressive tyrants not because they restrained human rights, but because of their failure to uphold popular Islamic law and their excessive reiteration of Western policies, specifically in regards to the Middle East Peace Process. This creates a dangerous precedent. Essentially, if men like Morsi simply fulfill populist demands to fight for Palestine, visibly oppose and cut ties with the West, and oust secularism, they can seize absolute power in post-Arab Springs nations without objection. Instead of helping the spread of democracy, thus, the Arab Springs could be extremely threatening to the West. It could lead to a new brand of Middle Eastern autocrats who instead of appeasing the West overtly diverge from the West in order to legitimize their rule.

What does this mean for the West? Can the West, as Mitt Romney would surely like to offer, do nothing more than kick the can down the road? It would appear so. Western influence in the Middle East will simply provide fodder for nationalist leaders like Morsi who currently cite undue American intervention in the Middle East as justification for his anti-Western sentiment. Most of these sentiments are held from Cold War era American support of ruthless dictators in the Middle East. The West supported these leaders economically in return for strongly anti-Communist stances. Now the United States and the West as a whole is paying the price. Yet, instead of stopping the bleeding, the West is continuing its strong stance on Israel much to the disgust of the international community, particularly in the Middle East. If the West does end support for Israel, though, it will lose its primary Middle Eastern ally and will likely fail to make any progress with post Arab Spring nations. It truly is a predicament for the West.

Egypt, North Korea, and Fannie Mae: Too Big to Fail

06 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, The Americas

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


President Obama, in supporting the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, showed that he understands the ills of ‘too big to fail’ banks. He has not, however, shown the same prudence with ‘too big to fail’ nations.

Responding to ‘too big to fail nations’ is, of course, very different from responding to ‘too big to fail’ companies. In the case of companies, the solution was reducing the relative power and collateral damage that would ensue a company’s demise.

A ‘too big to fail’ nation from the United States’ perspective is a nation with which the United States is dependent on an alliance for any number of reasons. More often than not, these are nations that pose a threat to the United States and its allies. These nations include North Korea and Iran.

The United States has significantly cut food aid to North Korea because the Kim family aristocracy (currently led by Kim Il-sung) has hoarded all supplies donated to the nation. The United States has indicated that it has an issue with supporting a family worth 30 billion dollars, but why should it? In reality, increasing foreign aid to North Korea by 50 million dollars a year would be a fraction of a percent of the budget and would go much farther in terms of ensuring national defense than spending billions on wars in the Middle East. After all, North Korea has shown great openness to nations (such as China) that support them with money.

In Iran, foreign aid would undermine the sanctions in place by the United States and most of the international community. The sanctions, however, do not appear to be having any affect on Ahmadinejad. The main method of strengthening sanctions at the moment appears to be tightening oil imports, a plan that would adversely impact the international community more than it would Ahmadinejad. The United States appears rightly so to be fearful of military conquest as it could destabilize the Middle East peace process. As with North Korea, donating foreign aid to the corrupt Ahmadinejad would ensure that in the case that Iran builds nuclear weaponry, it would not threaten the United States with it.

Of course, forming alliances with North Korea and Iran, though beneficial to the United States, will likely be unpopular. This will not be an issue for Obama if re-elected, for it would be his final term. Of course, at present Obama will not make any controversial discussions in regards to Iran for fear of affecting his re-election hopes. If Romney is elected, though, such a plan is inconceivable. He seems to be a populist leader who will focus on appeasing the American people by supporting Israel relentlessly.

Seeds of an Iranian Revolution: Delisting of the MEK

01 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by in The Americas, Foreign Relations

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,


For once, Iran has got it right. Although it is well documented that its state-television usually broadcasts propaganda, the state television’s condemnation of the United States delisting the MEK (Mujahedeen-e-Khalq) as a terrorist organization is completely justified.

The delisting of the MEK opens up the organization to trade with US businesses. Also, all MEK funds held in the United States will be unblocked. More implicitly, though, it means that the United States supports the group’s activities.

The MEK is a group that hopes to overthrow Ahmadinejad’s regime in place of a more secular and peaceful one. Obviously, this is in American interests as Iranian leader Ahmadinejad poses significant threat to the United States and its allies, especially in terms of nuclear armament.

However, the fact of the matter is that the MEK had carried out terrorism for over 30 years. The United States justifies its actions by claiming that it has not carried out terrorism for over a decade. Nonetheless, it is likely that the MEK’s terrorist practices will continue. After all, the group is undergoing a major overhaul at the moment and it is difficult to predict what effects these changes will have on the MEK’s methods of regime change. Some of the changes that the MEK is currently undergoing including revamping the objective almost exclusively to toppling Ahmadinejad’s regime and moving its headquarters and the majority of its personnel from Iraq to France.

While the United States and much of the international community certainly wants to oust Ahmadinejad, Washington policymakers must ask themselves whether or not the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq is the most responsible agent for change. The answer: a resounding no.

The MEK represents neither a culmination of popular sovereignty nor a source of legitimate government. There is a reason why the organization was placed on the US terrorist list for decades.

It should be noted that the MEK is the predominant rebel group that the United States funded during Project Cyclone against Soviet plots to capture Afghanistan. During this time, able to grow economically and in sheer numbers through American aid, the organization instituted a cult of personality around two of its senior leaders, Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi. Additionally, the group carried out chemical attacks against Iran and aided Saddam Hussein in crimes against humanity in order to gain his approval of the group’s residence in Iraq.

For a decade, the MEK has been subdued in large part because of its lack of economic power. By opening the organization to commerce with the United States, it will likely turn rogue as it did the last time that America provided the group economic assistance. The United States must subdue the MEK economically by keeping the organization on the list of US terrorist organizations, and the U.S. must attempt Iranian regime change by alternative methods. It is, after all, as important for a new Iranian regime to be democratic and peaceful as it is for Ahmadinejad to be ousted.

The Cost of Diplomacy: New Fundraising Initiatives for the UN

28 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by in Economy, Foreign Relations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,


Within countries, the issue of progressive taxing is quite controversial. Now, impose a progressive tax internationally and political turmoil is ensured. The United Nations is currently discussing proposals to impose progressive taxes internationally to raise funds for its initiatives. This is a move that conservatives will not look favorably upon; after all, the point of the measures is to redistribute wealth from developed economies to underdeveloped and developing ones.

Much of these measures target the richest for the rich. For example, the UN hopes to impose a 1% income tax on billionaires, a tax on trading the Yen, the Euro, the US dollar and the Pound Sterling among other currencies from developed nations. They also plan a miniscule tax on all financial transactions, stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives. Additionally, as a joint venture to raise funds and meet environmental goals, the UN plans to mandate a tax on airplane tickets and carbon emissions.

Now, the question arises: will these new measures be more beneficial to he international community as a whole compared to fundraising measures that the United Nations already has in place. At the moment, all Member States are required to pay their fair share of dues for the United Nations’ services. Their dues are based on a complex formula ratified by Member States. The main difference between the current method of financing and the proposed measures is that the current measures allow for a greater degree of flexibility for individual Member States. So, essentially, Member States can choose how they want to raise this capital whether it be through a flat tax, a mildly progressive tax, a regressive tax, or a very liberal tax system. Most nations in the world currently employ a mildly progressive tax while the proposed measures call for extremely liberal tax systems targeting only the super wealthy.

Two questions must be asked: what role does the United Nations have in direct funding and is a liberal tax system in line with the UN’s goals.

Each UN Member State holds coveted national sovereignty, a principle by which they have autonomy over their nation. However, upon joining the UN, partial sovereignty is granted to the United Nations. It is questionable whether or not the United Nations has the power to directly tax citizens. After all, unlike individual governments, it derives its power from UN Member States as opposed to citizens. Thus, the UN should abide by its current methods of fundraising in order to stay within the bounds of its objectives and powers

The other issue, of course, is on the method of taxing. Should the rich be providing nearly all the money for the United Nations? After al, it is mainly the poor who benefit from the UN services so it seems that the rich. The current method of obtaining funding indirectly from individuals through governments is invariably the fairest and most effective method of fundraising as it allows for a less radically liberal method of fundraising in the majority of UN Member States and does not infringe upon national sovereignty. Therefore, the United Nations should not reform its methods of fundraising by imposing direct taxes on individuals.

Failures of Middle Eastern Democracy

16 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, The Americas

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,


The United States often tries to portray democracy as the one-size-fits-all solution to any country’s issues. In reality, though, democracy is not always the best government model for a nation. This idea can clearly be seen through the Middle Eastern protests against American embassies.

It is important to note that the Embassy attacks are not targeted. The militants justified their rebellion by citing religious provocation. Recently, an Israeli-American produced movie poorly depicting prophet Muhammad was released. Similarly, Middle Eastern militants had used the accidental burning of Qurans by US troops in Afghanistan a few months ago as justification for violence. Without a doubt, these religious extremists aim to latch onto any Western blows to their religious to use as incitements for anti-Western action. Middle Eastern Islamic extremists have a raging passion for the United States, one that is not entirely unjustified. After all, the United States, especially during the Cold War, supported anti-Communist authoritarian regimes that perpetrated countless crimes against humanity, threatened many Middle Eastern nations by setting up numerous strategic military bases across the region, and supported Israel despite its illegal seizure of Palestinian land during the Six Day War from June 5th to June 10th 1967.

Middle Eastern nations have only increased in their religious fervor since their creation of Islamist democratic governments through the Arab Springs. In the Middle East, newfound democracy from the Arab Spring is proving to foster unrest and violence. It should be noted that prior to the Arab Springs, Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia were all relatively peaceful nations. Yet, Libya is now a hotbed for religious extremism and hosts Al Qaeda militant operations. Egypt and Tunisia too have weak federal governments that allows for violence and militant activity.

It would undoubtedly be beyond the bounds of the United States to intervene in nations such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya that the US supported in their rebellions against the government. However, the United States does have significant power in determining the political fate of Afghanistan. It seems absurd that the United States, a nation based on the fundamental values of popular sovereignty and inalienable liberties, could suggest that Afghanistan adopt an absolute ruler. Political reasons, such as the decade spent trying to build Afghani democracy and numerous American attempts to oust illegitimate dictators in the Middle East and abroad, may prevent the United States from establishing authoritarian rule.

The idea that authoritarian governments could be better for peace than democratic ideas is a radical one in today’s world. Yet, all ideological political and economic shifts are caused by radical ideas. After all, the first dissenter of mercantilism may have been regarded as uninformed or illogical. 3 Centuries later, though, capitalism and free trade dominate much of the world.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister: One Year On

14 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Government, Middle East

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,


Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar has been in office for a year, and has enacted immense change. Overall, she has made Pakistan’s foreign policy and foreign relations much more open and transparent. While much of her action has striven to make Pakistan more amiable with the West, some of the foreign relations that she has established could undermine Pakistan’s hope to improve relations with the United States and other NATO members.

Under Khar, Pakistan has decided to overlook its anger over US drone strikes that have killed countless Pakistani security forces and citizens. While Pakistan has never formally retracted its demand for the United States to apologize for these actions, Islamabad recently opened NATO trade routes to Afghanistan. This will save the United States billions of dollars as it prepares to launch a full-scale military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Without these trade routes, the United States was forced to rely on the much more costly Central Asian trade routes.

Pakistan has also consistently improved relations with India under Khar despite continued disputes of the Kashmir region and anger from India over the series of bombings in 2008 that were allegedly perpetrated by Pakistani militants. Currently, Islamabad and New Delhi are working on trade deals and maximize the efficiency of visas for citizens of one country to visit the other.

Regarding Iran, Pakistan recently signed into action a policy to improve wheat imports from Iran. At first glance, this move seems harmless. However, this policy essentially attempts to provide Iran a cushion for its economic sanctions. Pakistan thereby attempts to singlehandedly undermine the efforts of the international community to diplomatically pressure Tehran.

While the newfound openness in relations with Iran is by no means good news for the West, it signals a positive change in Pakistani foreign policy: transparency. A year ago, the United States would be oblivious to the trade and political agreements struck between Pakistan and Iran, among many other unfavorable trade partners in the West’s mind.

While Pakistan’s explicit relations with Iran may be difficult for Western nations to bear, the West should reward Pakistan for making its foreign policy more transparent by increasing free trade with Pakistan and ensuring greater intelligence cooperation with Islamabad. The worst possibility in a situation such as this would be for the United States and other Western nations to fail to recognize Pakistan’s achievements. This could result in Pakistan further distancing itself from Europe and North America which would be disastrous given the West’s interests in greater cooperation with Pakistan in order to capture key militant leaders from groups such as Al Qaeda.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers