U.S. Foreign Policy
It should be of no surprise to anyone that U.S. foreign policy would have a relationship to U.S. domestic policy. With that in mind, it doesn’t hurt to look at what they have in common.
It seem, that U.S. foreign policy is split at least between two, if not more, principles. The first being one directed toward theories of democracy, freedom, and human rights. The other directed toward national security. Which is, more often then not, paraphrased by saying what is in our national economic interest. It is clear how these are a reflectance of U.S. domestic policy’s in that while we do believe in democracy, freedom, and human rights, we also believe in economic security.
That said, one of these principles is founded on time honored traditions of rationality and morality. The other is founded off of traditions of personal desire focused toward economic ends. Because of this, in the process of foreign and domestic implementation, these policy’s are conflicting if not totally untenable in a co-extensive situation.
This can be made clear by looking at U.S. policy toward governments in the Middle East. While globally the U.S. preaches democracy, freedom, and human rights, it at the same time supports monarchies and dictatorships in the name of national economic security. How does the U.S., on one hand, tell one nation that it must free its people from dictatorship and give them the right to vote, while on the other hand support a monarchy that is just next door merely because it has economic value to us? This contraction makes clear the untenable nature of such conflicting policy’s. And the answer to that question is outside the scope of this writing.
We can also see this in U.S. domestic policy’s. Far to often the economic security of corporations trumps the freedoms of the people. Laws are passed that allow companies to do things that individuals would go to jail for. But it is not just companies, it is also the rich in the U.S. that have the same privileges. One does not need to search long to find a case in which the rights and freedoms of the poor have been tread on for the advantage of someone of wealth.
With these things in mind, as I said, it should be no surprise to see that U.S. foreign policy echo's its domestic and that problems that arise in the implementation of those policy’s. These problems are found in the bases of the policy’s as stated above, and will be made clear in my next post.
It seem, that U.S. foreign policy is split at least between two, if not more, principles. The first being one directed toward theories of democracy, freedom, and human rights. The other directed toward national security. Which is, more often then not, paraphrased by saying what is in our national economic interest. It is clear how these are a reflectance of U.S. domestic policy’s in that while we do believe in democracy, freedom, and human rights, we also believe in economic security.
That said, one of these principles is founded on time honored traditions of rationality and morality. The other is founded off of traditions of personal desire focused toward economic ends. Because of this, in the process of foreign and domestic implementation, these policy’s are conflicting if not totally untenable in a co-extensive situation.
This can be made clear by looking at U.S. policy toward governments in the Middle East. While globally the U.S. preaches democracy, freedom, and human rights, it at the same time supports monarchies and dictatorships in the name of national economic security. How does the U.S., on one hand, tell one nation that it must free its people from dictatorship and give them the right to vote, while on the other hand support a monarchy that is just next door merely because it has economic value to us? This contraction makes clear the untenable nature of such conflicting policy’s. And the answer to that question is outside the scope of this writing.
We can also see this in U.S. domestic policy’s. Far to often the economic security of corporations trumps the freedoms of the people. Laws are passed that allow companies to do things that individuals would go to jail for. But it is not just companies, it is also the rich in the U.S. that have the same privileges. One does not need to search long to find a case in which the rights and freedoms of the poor have been tread on for the advantage of someone of wealth.
With these things in mind, as I said, it should be no surprise to see that U.S. foreign policy echo's its domestic and that problems that arise in the implementation of those policy’s. These problems are found in the bases of the policy’s as stated above, and will be made clear in my next post.
Comments
Post a Comment