US Foreign Policy: 2009 and Beyond

[Edward Campbell]

We should all care, a lot, about US foreign policy. The US is:

1. The leader of the West - a grouping in which we hold charter member status;

2. The only undisputed global superpower - for now; and

3. Our good neighbour, biggest trading partner and, like it or not, best friend.*

What the US presidentialcandidates think about foreign policy matters to us - almost as much as it matters to our American friends and neighbours.

Foreign Affairs magazine has an 'open' (no subscription required) Campaign 2008 feature in which the candidates are invited to submit essays detailing their proposals for US foreign policy if (when, for one them) they are elected. This far Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have all submitted essays. They make fascinating reading.


----------
* That prescient description was offered by Robert Thompson, leader of the now defunct federal Social Credit Party in the '60s.

 

[Falange]

Yeah I am suscribed to the hardcopy of this journal. However you should be careful to the extent you take this pre-election articles at heart. I love the works of scholars that have submitted fascinating academic articles such as J. Nye, J. Sweig and Hoffman. However, when it comes to politicians whatever they write it comes and goes. I love how for the 2000 elections Condo Rice wrote all this stuff in Foreign Affairs undertaking a neo-realist approach as if the Bush government was going to follow this doctrine; however in a couple of months after the elections - yeah, prior to 9/11- decided to take the whole neo-conservative normative avenue which is quite contradictory.

 

[AIC_2K5]

It's interesting reading Sen. McCain's policy objectives; he proposes a "League of Democracies" not unlike what Edward and Ruxted have promoted.

 

[Greymatters]

1. The leader of the West - a grouping in which we hold charter member status;

True for now, but their title is being challenged by dropping economc power and their political power is being challenged by the Euro block.  The only thing keeping their head above matter is their superior military power and their alignment of non-western dependent and allied countries. 

2. The only undisputed global superpower - for now; and

The USA has raised the bar of how we describe a 'super-power' so high, that no one else can possibly match them for the foreseeable future.  It needs a new classification system.  Its just not as simple as 'have-nots', 'haves' and 'super-powers', it should be more realistic.  As an example, the USA is at the top as a 'mega-power' based on its political, military, and economic might as the 'last man standing' ever since 1990.  Any other country with at least one or two major forces of influence should be a Super-Power, anybody who makes the megapower think twice before pissing them off, which can include China, Russia, UK, India, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Israel, even Saudi Arabia and Brazil.  A great number of other countries are then aligned as the 'Middle Powers' (Canada, Netherlands, Korea, Egypt, South Africa, Ukraine etc.), and the remainder as 'Lesser Powers' (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Turkmenistan, etc.), and a very small number of countries left over as 'Non-Powers' (Haiti, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Georgia, etc...).  Not the best model, but an idea... 

3. Our good neighbour, biggest trading partner and, like it or not, best friend.*

Kind of like your neighbourhood buddy who you grew up with your whole life, but who always cheated when trading hockey cards, was always better than you at sports, and when he got older slept with your mother before dumping her for your sister.  Later, he was your best man at the wedding, but you find out he had a quick one with your wife before the marriage.  Nowadays, he's working as a professional boxer, you make more money than he does, but everybody still likes him better and your oblivious Dad still takes him out drinking every Friday night.