Foreign Policy Paper 3

8/8/2019 Foreign Policy Paper 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-paper-3 1/3

Thomas Bailey

6-24-2010

Foreign Policy

In his book Ignatieff describes several principles for the preservation of democratic societies as

well as actions that republics take in order to deal with emergency situations. American actions

regarding such situations, both positive and negative in effect, are described within.

Some of these actions have been the source of pride, and others of shame. Each was taken with

the preservation of the state as the motivation. The idea that democracies will defend the freedoms of

the citizens thereof has always been a point of pride with democracies, the “give me liberty or give me

death” attitude has not faded from the American national conscience. At the same time however, when

the national security was threatened by Japan at the onset of WWII the American government forced its

own citizens to relocate to what amounted to prison camps. Simply because a group of people were

perceived to be a potential threat to the nation, their rights were stripped of them. This raises the

questions we face today. How far should republics go to defend themselves? At what point does the

state commit more evil against its people than has the enemy? In some cases answers are unclear, in

others they are more so, but what is clear is the populations of republics are ultimately responsible for

the direction taken by their leadership in this regard.

The effects of American domestic politics on foreign policies in regard to human rights is quite

powerful today. The balance of power in America has been shifted over these types of issues. The most

recent presidential election was a great example of this effect. Barack Obama's stance on Guantanamo

Bay, and his congressional voting record regarding human rights policies has been said to be a key

factor in his winning the election. This is a clear indication that domestic politics do indeed have quite

and effect on the shaping of our foreign policies. In fact it seems that these issues become more



important as time passes. The access to information now enjoyed by individuals in developed nations

has never been as expansive as it currently it. It is now possible to find raw footage depicting the real

human consequences of warfare in all of its ugly forms. For most Americans the exposure to this

information has lead to an increased interest in the preservation of human rights through our foreign

policies. After all aren't we as Americans supposed to be the vanguard for freedom and individual

liberties?

When the Bush administration entered Afghanistan, two objectives were listed. The primary

goal was stated to find and punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The secondary goal in this

conflict was supposed to be the liberation of Afghanistan from the oppressive Taliban regime. As far as

human rights victories were concerned, this was sure to be a hit. However when stories of torture

started making their way back to American ears, specifically stories of “water-boarding”, the action

became seen as tainted. What started as a justified military action was now seen as something similar to

what we were fighting against in the first place. These attitudes only intensified in the wake of the

actions to follow in Iraq.

Leading into the invasion of Iraq there was a lot of rhetoric regarding things like weapons of

mass destruction, state sponsored terrorism, and human rights violations committed by Saddam

Hussein's regime. Again when the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, there was not an

incredible amount of public outcry against the war. There was indeed an anti war movement, but in the

first parts of 2003 this movement was nothing compared to what it would become. While certain goals

of the invasion were achieved, and perhaps some positive effects were felt, the atrocity that was the

Abu Ghraib incident completely violated everything the united states was supposed to be correcting in

this oppressed nation. The international backlash of these war crimes was tremendous, and the ensuing

investigations revealed more disturbing information regarding the sub-contracting of military functions



to private entities. The results of this unfortunate fiasco were a clearer understanding of how poor, or

immoral leadership would affect American political standing currently and in the future.

International opinion of American power is crucial to the standing of the nation in the

international political system. If America is regarded as a ruthless, exploitative bully who is to be

expected to trust the nation for trade or political alliance? How can the idea of America as the

benevolent hegemon be preserved? The short and simple answer is that America will lose international

support, and legitimacy if these words could be applied to a description of American leadership. If it is

perceived that human dignity means nothing to the leadership of America, then it will be very difficult

to facilitate the development of the “third world”, or to create alliances with the nations American

action has “liberated”. The insurgencies now being combated across the middle east may very well

have been avoided if the perception of American leadership had been more positive, and had that

leadership indeed acted in a more morally dignified manner.

Foreign Policy Paper 3

Documents

Transcript of Foreign Policy Paper 3