Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After Vietnam & Iraq it does look attractive, doesn't it?
It's an interesting question. On the one hand, we're supposed to be the "leaders of the free world", but that has all too often turned into the world's police force, and that begs the question of how far do we go in sending our kids to die for someone else's problems. I mean, that's supposedly one of the reasons for the United Nations.
I guess my views would be those of Teddy Roosevelt's- Speak softly but carry a big stick. We should lead the world in conflict resolutions- but it's hard to do so with so much partisan politics here.
On the other hand, it's hard to turn our backs when a country cries out from the grave to stop mass murder by evil leadership and restore some form of democracy. It's hard to turn our backs when people are being starved, tortured (gee, sounds like our country) and mutilated and terrorized.
So we should start first with negotiations. If that fails, we go to putting pressure on governments. If that fails, we try to draw in the international community with sanctions... If that fails, I think there comes a time when we cannot turn our backs on the oppressed and have to act. To not do so shames our ideals of democracy.
I tend to think of it as necessary for self-interest. Yeah, we can say it's for the good of mankind, we are the world's police, we stand for freedom, etc. ad nauseam - but really, if we don't help out Mexico's economy, then our borders get swamped, if we don't do something about bird-flu in China, then we get bird-flu here; if we don't help in fixing the ills of [insert country here] then their problems will sooner or later become our problems.
I tend to think of it as necessary for self-interest. Yeah, we can say it's for the good of mankind, we are the world's police, we stand for freedom, etc. ad nauseam - but really, if we don't help out Mexico's economy, then our borders get swamped, if we don't do something about bird-flu in China, then we get bird-flu here; if we don't help in fixing the ills of [insert country here] then their problems will sooner or later become our problems.
The trick is to have enlightened self-interest.
No, we can be both noble as well as protect our self interest. The trick is to do things the right way and for the right reasons.
Should we take on that kind of foreign policy? What are the pro's/con's for doing it?
Could you be any more general? Heheh.
If by 'non-interventionist' you mean isolationist then no, we should definitely not follow that sort of ideology in our foreign policy. The world has become far too globalized, our economies far too interdependent for isolationism to be viable. Our future is too deeply embedded in the world's future for us to ignore the world outside of our borders. Our economy is dependent on foreign markets for its survival. The problem of global climate change threatens all people everywhere and requires a global approach to combat it, as do numerous other problems. Sovereignty is weakening and the power of global institutions is growing. There is no conceivable way for us to extract ourselves from this situation. Like it or not we have no choice but to be heavily involved in the global economy and the affairs of other countries.
The question then becomes 'how involved?' There are no easy answers to this, though I advocate increased multilateralism in economic, humanitarian and military issues. We need more effective global institutions for economic governance and environmental regulation. I personally also advocate some level of interventionism to protect fundamental human rights; for example, I think it a moral failing on our part that we aren't more involved in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
No, we can be both noble as well as protect our self interest. The trick is to do things the right way and for the right reasons.
I was just trying to sell the idea to those who think non-intervention is the correct policy. They may not accept nobility as a guiding principle, but I'm sure they understand self-interest.
If by 'non-interventionist' you mean isolationist then no, we should definitely not follow that sort of ideology in our foreign policy. The world has become far too globalized, our economies far too interdependent for isolationism to be viable. Our future is too deeply embedded in the world's future for us to ignore the world outside of our borders. Our economy is dependent on foreign markets for its survival. The problem of global climate change threatens all people everywhere and requires a global approach to combat it, as do numerous other problems. Sovereignty is weakening and the power of global institutions is growing. There is no conceivable way for us to extract ourselves from this situation. Like it or not we have no choice but to be heavily involved in the global economy and the affairs of other countries.
The question then becomes 'how involved?' There are no easy answers to this, though I advocate increased multilateralism in economic, humanitarian and military issues. We need more effective global institutions for economic governance and environmental regulation. I personally also advocate some level of interventionism to protect fundamental human rights; for example, I think it a moral failing on our part that we aren't more involved in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Non interventionism and isolationism are two differnet foriegn. policies Isolationism is defined as non-interventionism plus economic nationalism. Meaning, don't talk to us, don't look at us, because we want nothing to do with the rest of the world. If we adopted a foriegn policy of non-interventionism we could still trade with other countries but would not have to get involved with their social issues, political upheavals and uprisings, etc. I think we need to stop policing the world and worry about our own problems first. Does it make sense to try to clean my neighbor's house when mine is a wreck???
I think we need to stop policing the world and worry about our own problems first. Does it make sense to try to clean my neighbor's house when mine is a wreck???
Actually, it does. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent as a result of globalization, events in one country become more and more influential on the system as a whole. The current global economic crisis is an excellent example. What started out as an economic problem here in the US and a few other developed countries has essentially spread like a disease (much in the same way as the Asian Financial Crisis spread out from Thailand in 1997) across the globe and is now affecting virtually every country to some degree. Globalization means we can no longer contain economic problems (or, increasingly, political ones) within one country's borders. We now have a vested interest in the economic and political affairs of other countries as a means of maintaining the health of the global system as a whole. Furthermore, other problems such as global climate change are beyond the ability of any particular country to deal with at a purely domestic level. As economic, environmental, social and political problems become increasingly global in nature, more and more cooperation is going to be required to deal with them effectively. Even beyond these problems we have an interest in the domestic situation of other countries; improving economic conditions throughout the developing world mean more markets are opening for our goods. Areas undergoing periods of political instability represent security threats (Afghanistan and Pakistan, anyone?) while political problems in major trading partners can threaten our economy and access to natural resources.
So yes, we have a very pronounced interest in the internal affairs of other countries. Isolationism and interventionism are both derelict foreign policies in this era of globalization.
Actually, it does. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent as a result of globalization, events in one country become more and more influential on the system as a whole. The current global economic crisis is an excellent example. What started out as an economic problem here in the US and a few other developed countries has essentially spread like a disease (much in the same way as the Asian Financial Crisis spread out from Thailand in 1997) across the globe and is now affecting virtually every country to some degree. Globalization means we can no longer contain economic problems (or, increasingly, political ones) within one country's borders. We now have a vested interest in the economic and political affairs of other countries as a means of maintaining the health of the global system as a whole. Furthermore, other problems such as global climate change are beyond the ability of any particular country to deal with at a purely domestic level. As economic, environmental, social and political problems become increasingly global in nature, more and more cooperation is going to be required to deal with them effectively. Even beyond these problems we have an interest in the domestic situation of other countries; improving economic conditions throughout the developing world mean more markets are opening for our goods. Areas undergoing periods of political instability represent security threats (Afghanistan and Pakistan, anyone?) while political problems in major trading partners can threaten our economy and access to natural resources.
So yes, we have a very pronounced interest in the internal affairs of other countries. Isolationism and interventionism are both derelict foreign policies in this era of globalization.
Either I misread your (very well) written post or you mis-wrote it.
You first paragraph well states the requirement for the necessity of nonisolationism & direct intervention as an affirmitive policy. Then you end you state thay are "derelict" foreign policies.
You clearly made the point that from a global perspective, we're all in this together. That said, it follows that if one opts to ignore the others it abdicates their responsibility.
I also agree that it's always best to start at home first, but to do so at the detriment of others may not be very wise as it's unlikely we will ever really "get it fully together" here again.
That would be nice, especially non-interventionism in the lives of Americans themselves.
Liberty begins at home, and it's best spread by example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
