Share Your papers - Read others - free

Newsletter

English

Drama

Political Sci

Economics

Internet related

Articles

Philosophy

Business

Biology

Anthropology

History

Law

Religious

Poetry

Sociology

Humor

Film

Partners

MySpace Stuff
Funny Gas
RipCheats - Video Game Cheat Codes

Printable paper

Lined paper

Black lined paper

Light Blue lined paper

Blue Cornell note taking paper

Graph/grid paper

Black Graph paper

Green Graph paper

Blue Graph paper

Light Blue Graph paper

Light Grey Graph paper

Red Graph paper

OUR POLICY - THE COST OF BENEFITS Rate: 54321 Font size: | Category: Polisci | Posted By: admin | Rating:

OUR POLICY - THE COST OF BENEFITS The United States' current foreign policy is built off of a preemptive model. Before the enemy can lift a finger, we would have already taken combative steps to eliminate the threat at hand, and when we hit, we hit hard. We send out humanitarian aid to countries which can bring economic or social benefit back to our own country. We use our military strength to influence countries to trade and set competitive prices. The United States maintains control of many of the world's primary oil suppliers via military and economic influence. Questions we must ask ourselves in the quest to determine if our foreign policy is ready for the 21st century include: how can our country determine what is a true threat, and more importantly, how much benefit is achievable as a result of a preemptive strike The Bush preemptive policy was adopted after the Sept 11 attacks which was included in the National Military Strategy and the National Defense Strategy reports. The NMS (National Military Strategy) explains what could cause preemptive strike, "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack." (Government, 2002). After the September 11, 2001 attacks our enemy has transformed from countries to extremist groups. These groups can operate almost anywhere which makes it more difficult to track down and prevent danger to our homeland. This new enemy has come out of the dark corners of the world in the past decade which has forced our government to take a stronger anticipatory attack against any such beings which may be considered dangerous to our well being. One issue with having a preemptive strategy is that we don't know the full cost of what the strike will amount to; whether it is our social ties to other allies, economic instability of other countries, or thousands of deaths for a cause that cannot be proved. We never know if it really benefits us because we attack before we can be attacked. This strategy also punishes people "not for what they have done or are doing but for what they might have done or could do" (Galeano, 2003). Japan has been using preemptive attacks since WWII when they attack Pearl Harbor. It is said the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to become the dominate power, and to do so they must weaken the United States. As in the case where Hitler attacked Poland, claiming it was only time before Poland would send military to attack Germany. With use of our preemptive strategy we are initiating preventive war attacks while the enemy is weak, and uses our great military strength to scare and defeat the enemy. In a way, our preemptive strategy is like two bodies in a knife fight except one cannot see if the enemy has purchased a knife, but can only see him walking toward the knife store. That one body must determine if that body is a large enough threat to create enough fear to attack before the enemy can enter the store. There is also a trust aspect that we must look at, whether there can be level of trust that the enemy won't use the knife to attack, or whether it's to protect from other forces. Kant states, "Some level of trust in the enemy's way of thinking must be preserved, even in the midst of war, for otherwise no peace can ever be concluded and the hostilities would become a war of extermination." (Kant, 1983), this passage explains what can be the result of preemptive attacks. The body with the knife watching the other may be paranoid with aggression and strikes first. This body may be viewed as one who will not allow the possibility. (Crawford, 2003) Another issue at hand is how much damage one body should cause to the other in a preemptive attack. Our government must determine how much is at risk, what kind of threat, and how large the threat is to our country. For example the body attacks the body going to the knife store and kills him without trying to resolve the issue by merely working out a contract or agreement then that would be an unethical and immoral decision. Our past presidents have had this policy in mind while making decisions, however the policy never became official as it has now become, Franklin Roosevelt declared it prudent to strike a rattlesnake first, and in October 1962 John F. Kennedy was hours away from launching a preemptive war against communist Cuba to prevent the basing of Soviet weapons of mass destruction there. (Busch, 2003) Our policy must determine the difference between legitimate preemption and legitimate aggression, doing so would help us make better decisions in the long run. Running aggression out of revenge what many Americans wanted after the 911 attacks leaves us in a position to be in fear of the world attacking, and then having to prove our capabilities. Trading with our neighbors has been a practice for some time now. Our largest trade partners Canada and Mexico which both bring hundreds of billions of dollars into the country yearly. (Institution, 2007) The United States exported around $211 billion in 2005 which has only grown; the U.S. has also imported a substantial amount toping at around $287 billion in 2005. Free trade such as the trade where no taxes or barriers are in place is what our capitalist government promotes across the world. Maintaining our current trade partners and getting new countries to trade would be ideal. Some argue that our government would be better off not importing and not being as dependant as are on other countries, though our government is unable to generate all of these products at the low prices which they've purchased at. As other countries' trade partner relationship grows, as does the country, in the case with China's relationship with Japan, and the growth the two countries have found by merely trading with each other more. In 2004, the trade between Japan and the U.S. was $197 Billion, which was 19 percent of the total trade for Japan. During that time china had increased their trade relationship with Japan bumping them to $213 billion in imports and exports accounting for 20.1 percent of Japan's total trade. (Blustein, 2005) The World Trade Organization (WTO) is well known for their fight for free trade establishing agreements between the U.S. and other countries to provide a swift medium for trading without many restrictions. Smaller countries decide to accept trade agreements with the United States just to stay in the game, to provide a boost to their economy. The boost is nothing to the United States, if anything helps the U.S. however in many cases for the smaller countries; it causes irreparable harm to the economy. (Office, 2003) The United States pushes for the spread of democracy in ways that can be seen as unethical, for example; threatening a country to change their ways and mend to ours. The use of our military is a strength the United States has that many other countries don't. A contradiction of which the United States takes in part of is the aid sent to a "free" Muslim country I which the country is not truly free, nor democratic. (Haqqani, 2005) Through the belief in freedom should be given to all, our government impedes on different countries to spread democracy, this democracy usually includes free trade agreements and yearly aid to continue this path. The quest for world peace will always be a journey that our society cannot seem to get to. It's a journey which brings enlightenment as well as instability. Right now our government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on our military budget; with just a fraction of that amount of money we would be able to feed entire countries. Spending money on our military gives our country more economic power, spending on countries without anything doesn't nearly benefit us as much as spending on ourselves would, or the benefits would take too long to yield. With countries holding billions of dollars in weapons, and a combination of fear, world peace is unlikely. The United States continues to wage wars either directly or indirectly. The United States can influence a country to become a war state through economic aid or lack thereof. With a preemptive policy, our government acts then asks questions later, meaning we'll attack before we will ever know all the details. Our current foreign policy will not work with world peace. If the world was fair, meaning everyone had the same amount of resources, food, and money, and then world peace would be more likely. As we cannot see that happening anytime in the future, peace throughout the world is something we'll never see in our lifetime. Millions have been funneled through to countries which had attacks, or disasters which left them in need of help. Many of these countries have ties to the United States which speeds up the aid money, and possibly increases. Groups such as the Human Rights Watch help countries and people in need, they monitor the mainstream media and help where they can. As Bill Frelick states, "Refugees fundamentally have the right to return to a country that expelled them. But all refugees also have the right to make essential choices about their lives without threats and intimidation." (Nepal: US Offer to Resettle Bhutanese Refugees Sparks Tensions, 2007) The United States is helping Bhutanese refugees seek better homes, giving them choices of what they'd like to do. As for some, whom haven't had choices their entire life, being told what to do and being expelled from their country. Our current U.S. Policy doesn't give much help compared to what we could do. We give millions, but those millions translate into a small fraction of what damage we've done some damage which cannot be fixed. Other organizations such as Amnesty International USA help provide food and shelter for countries which lack such standards. These groups depend on funding from private organizations; this is one of many organizations which fight against our government for the sake of people in hunger and in war zone countries. Our current policy fills the needs of which they were set, growth and stability. We seek obtain a better style of life, along with wealth and beauty. While seeking these objects of desire our society causes countries to fall at our government's wrath and become slaves to our quest for global domination. As we control oil supplies as well as food and other natural resources, we obtain power, power which isn't something that should be given up. Our capitalist government seeks profit and no loss; loss would lead in failure which in our standards failure is not okay, although quite popular. WORKS CITED Blustein, P. (2005, January 27). China Passes U.S. In Trade With Japan. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from Washington Post : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40192- 2005Jan26.html Busch, A. E. (2003, October 1). Pre-Emptive Doctrine Difficult, But Not New. Retrieved May 2, 2007, from Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/busch/03/preemption.html Crawford, N. C. (2003, March). THE BEST DEFENSE . Retrieved April 16, 2007, from Boston Review: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.1/crawford.html Galeano, E. (2003, September). Make War, Not Love. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from Pax Humana: http://www.paxhumana.info/article.php3?id_article=280 Government, U. S. (2002, September). The national Security Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html Haqqani, H. (2005, November 18). U.S., Muslims and Democracy. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from The Indian Express: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17718&prog=zgp&proj =zdrl,zsa,zusr Hendren, J. (2005, March 19). Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from Los Angeles Times: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/0319firststrike.htm Institution, H. (2007, January 2). FACTS ON POLICY: Top Trading Partners. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from Hoover Institution : http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/4665961.html Kant, I. (1983). Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History and Morals. Hackett Publishing Co. Nepal: US Offer to Resettle Bhutanese Refugees Sparks Tensions. (2007, May 17). Retrieved May 17, 2007, from Human rights news: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/17/bhutan15936.htm North, G. (2007, April 4). Iran's Pre-Emptive Strike. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north523.html Office, C. B. (2003, July 3). The Pros and Cons of Pursuing Free-Trade Agreements. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4458&type=0&sequence=0 Rumsfeld, D. H. (2001, October 28). Remarks at Stakeout Outside ABC TV Studio. The high price of 'free' trade. (2003, November 17). Retrieved May 11, 2007, from Economic Policy Institute: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147

Email to a friend | Aim to a friend | Print this page | Report