|← Modern and Traditional Day Marriages||The Houston Chronicle →|
The conspiracies, beliefs, aims and traditions of varied countries contribute greatly on the aspects of insecurity or security in international and national levels. Tension naturally exists between different denominational groups in the world based on the different teachings spiritually and traditionally; a good example being the Islam and Christians. There is therefore a need to develop a level ground that all these di8fferent traditions and religions can be encompassed so that everyone is represented and does not feel left out. The United States therefore, due to this need, drafted a foreign policy to deal with the beliefs and traditions by other leaders and nations that will be capable of overwhelming international and national security.
There has emerged a lot of mayhem caused by the foreign policy drafted by the United States despite its initial aim. Some world leaders and nations oppose the policy under the ground s of opposing democracy while there are a few who feel the policy is legitimate. This research paper therefore, seeks to establish a basis to distinguish the negative and positive impacts of the US foreign policy with regards to free markets, world peace, human rights and democracy.
The US policy is designed in such a way that it is geared towards national security and also reduce the occurrence of insecurity amongst its allies, associates and friends. The policy therefore, in short is put in place to prevent barbaric and weird traditions and at the same time prevent sporadic wars. It is therefore stipulated in the foreign policy that the countries that are in constant battle should not posses’ weapons of mass destruction. This is because the weapons will not only create more war, but, will also lead to extensive damage since the weapons will encourage more war. Due to the fact that the US has been in constant conflict with the Middle East nations, it has therefore been trying its level best to prevent and suppress advances and attacks from terrorist groups, she has been very cautious to watch any attacks that can be caused directly or indirectly (Galula 2006).
Since the late 1950s, the United States has been involved in international issues that put the lives of her allies and people at a great risk. Their participation in national security has been one sided on the issues concerning the reinstatement of human right s and humanity. When the US allies go to war, the US is ready and willing to support them while the enemies are left to seek sympathy and assistance from the countries who share the same beliefs as them. This has therefore made the US have more enemies than friends, after the enactment of the foreign policy. At the end of the day, what the US seeks to do is ensure that the national security from its enemies is ensured by dealing with issues before they spill over. Despite the goals and the requirements by the US foreign policy, more harm than good has been and is still being caused by its enactment.
Conflict over Korean Peninsula
The controversy between South Korea and North Korea for the control of the Peninsula region brought different countries together to fight against or for the South Korea that was being attacked by the communist regime of North Korea. With the backing of the USA and other countries, South Korea was able to withstand the pressure North Korea and her communist supporters such as China and Russia were putting on her. This war actually happened between 1966 and 1971 and was not put as part of World War III or an extension of the World War II. The involvement of the US in this situation was to rid South Korea of war from the Communist regime of South Korea together with the supporters. Therefore, the war was partly the US foreign policy to protect the South Korea and partly a cold war to stop or prevent the spread of communism (Gonzalez, 2009).
This war did a lot of harm to the United States and Russia since it actually ruined the good relationship that had stared to build up after the Second World War. This also led to the destruction of the free markets since the relationship between the US and Russia allies were destroyed, hence each of the countries is doing their best in getting back at each other. This destruction does not only affect the two countries but other nations that benefited from the free markets. Consideri8ng the shifts of the economy from bad to worse, the recently developed and the developing economies are the once that are mostly affected unlike Russia and the United States, who have large economies.
When the United Sates chose to get involved in the Korean War, it did not put into consideration the human rights and humanity. This is evidenced by the fact that many civilians and army soldiers lost their lives during the war and this therefore dissolved any good intentions that the foreign policy had. A war that caused deaths of many children and women was a move aimed at paralyzing the growth of North Korea both politically and economically, but not as a means of pushing North Korea from the territory belonging to the South Koreans. This therefore disqualifies any good intentions that the US might claim in their participation of the cold war (Price, 2008).
Rescue for Kuwait
In 1991, Saddam Hussein’s soldiers were directed to launch an attack on Kuwait to take it over. Following the attempt by the Iraqi soldiers, some coalition states, including the United States, moved in to help save the situation before it got worse through repelling the Iraq forces. The ware was actually supposed to happen to Kuwait but attacks went as far as Baghdad where many civilians were wounded and majority losing their lives as a result of the war. The humanity and humanitarian aspect was not put in place in this situation as stipulated in the US policy since many people dies accruing to the war that affected even the innocent people, not concerned at all with the war (Kitson, 1970).
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a dictator in his leadership and this led the United States into believing that this would have adverse effects on the Middle East countries in terms of regional peace, especially in Kuwait. Affiliated parties amongst them being the Unites States had to intervene based on the issue of Kuwait and Iraq, in order to stop Saddam Hussein committing other humanitarian crimes against other nations. This move by the United States and the other parties made the Iraqis belief that their move was geared towards removing saddam Hussein from power. Due to this, the Kurd community among other groups and civilians started protesting against Saddam’s leadership and expected back up from the USA. Saddam exercised his brutality and used some chemical to massacre a considerable number of civilians who were protesting for his removal from power (Horowitz, 1967). According to the US foreign policy, it was designed to protect human rights and prevent inhumane acts and prevent wars from spilling over to other nations, but in this instance, this did not apply. The US knew of the carnages that Saddam Hussein was capable of committing on the civilians and yet did nothing to stop him. This therefore, deemed the foreign policy not neutral to parties in conflict and inconsiderate to all the parties, before the 9/11 events.
The Kurd massacre was a through crime and an inhumane act that the USA was fully aware of but did nothing in stopping it. The Unites States even participated in bombing Baghdad inspite of the fact that it was pushing the Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait. This does not in any way represent what was stipulated in the US foreign policy since many civilians amongst them innocent children lost their lives in a war they knew nothing about. Considering all the issues already discussed above, the US policy actually did more harm than good in all the instances. If the policy was to be effective, it would ensure that the precious human life above everything else would have been protected (McClintock, 1992).
Iran Nuclear Plan
The rule that some countries can handle weapons of mass destruction while others cannot depends on the leadership morality and stability of its leaders. Politically unstable nations are disqualified from using or even handling nuclear weapons or other weapons that can cause massive destruction since the ensuing possibility of there being some unethical use is very high. The nations that therefore qualify to make and handle nuclear weapons are supposed to get into some international treaties to ensure that a larger governing body than their local governments can control the munitions. This ensures that the governments that are supposed to make these weapons or use them can give an account for the weapons in case used in some terrorist activities and the safety of the international and national community.
Due to the wrangles and political instability caused by Iran and Iraq, the nuclear plan by Iran was a situation of international concern. According to the US foreign policy, Iran stands a potential threat tom the entire world’s peace due its involvement in war with the Iraqis and its link to the nuclear weaponry. Following this, the nuclear plants by Iran threaten the livelihoods of people around the Middle East and Asia in general. The involvement of the Unites States of freeing Iran of its weapons was a strategy geared towards protecting herself, which led to the US taking Iraq’s side in the war that accrued between Iran and Iraq. There is a great possibility that the United States was afraid that Iran would strike their state as a way of avenging their loss in the Iran-Iraq war. Following the earlier discussed occurrence, it can be deduced that the US foreign policy is not genuine since it seeks grounds to ensure that the USA is involved in issues that are self-deserving rather than for security reasons for all. In other words, the United States could have drafted the policy to protect them selfishly without putting into consideration the effects it will have 0on their neighboring states (Nagl, 2006).
The national security of the United States is threatened by the nations she has been involved in war with and the nations that harbor terrorists. The Iran war can therefore be labeled as a matter of double standards in that it was used as a way of getting nuclear weapons from the Iran and as amending ribbon of the broken national safety. There was a lot of harm caused by the US foreign policy such as the loss of soldiers’ lives, loss of many lives f the citizenry and loss of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money. In the long run, crippling the economic stability of Iran was considered demilitarization of her nuclear weaponry.
Suppression of Taliban and Search for Osama Bin Laden
After 9/11, the US’s national security became the top priority therefore making the foreign policy a basis for invading any country that was believed to harbor terrorists. Whether true or false, the Al-Qaeda under the former leadership of Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility. The Taliban in Afghanistan were allegedly accused of aiding the Al-Qaeda to sabotage the operations of the government of Afghanistan. On another related case, the government of Afghanistan was accused of harboring Osama Bin Laden. Following the series of accusations and the involvement of the Taliban in sabotaging the operations of Afghan government, US with the main aim of finding Osama Bin Laden send insurgents Afghanistan to restore order (Gonzalez, 2009).
However, the involvement of the US in Afghanistan was a matter of protecting the US or the world from terrorist was an offensive to hit back and avenge her loss. War that was not mainly aimed at anyone in particular emerged hence throwing Afghan civilians into mayhem following destruction of infrastructure, sabotage of power lines, killing of civilians, and distorting the operations of the government further. The results of the war were total destruction of the major cities like Kabul and operations brought to a halt in such areas. The aim for invasion was to capture Osama Bin Laden whom the US did not even know his nationality at the time. Nationalism in terms of birth is different from nationalism by registration. Given that, affiliate groups to Al-Qaeda and governments could have given Osama the right to take refuge in their countries, it was hard to determine where exactly he would be hosted. If at all he were at Afghanistan, it would be hard for the US to determine the exact coordinates of the place. However, the bombardment of Afghanistan cities was not justifying anything in terms of human rights, world peace, and democracy (Network of Concerned Anthropologists, 2009).
If at all the US foreign policy makes sense to the Afghan civilians, it was more harmful to them than it was good to the international community. The loss of life, more insecurity back at home, and provocation of other terrorist groups is the price that US and other nations have paid because of the foreign policy.
Quest for Saddam Hussein’s Resignation and Exile
Following the suit of Iran and the general threat that the world was facing following the advancement of terroristic group, President George W. Bush gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to give up power and flee from Iraq. This was coming after efforts to convince the leader to give up nuclear weapons that were believed to be within the country. Concerning the issues that the foreign policy was intended for, the US was moving in to aid in seizing the weapons that were believed to be hidden in Iraq. However, the efforts of the US to capture Saddam and unveil the weapons did not yield any fruits inspite of the heavy bombing and destruction of resources.
By default, the US foreign policy is a preventive measure against international and the national security of USA and her allies. On a very different aspect and perspective, US foreign policy is mechanism and tool for taking away freedom from leaders and nations from making or taking control of weaponry. Following this, the foreign policy is a key to authoritative governance where the perceptions of minority nations and regimes are of little or no impact to. By destroying oil wells and infrastructure in Iraq, U.S was crippling the economic sector and the social livelihood of Iraq. The reflective impact of the war was to sabotage free markets of oil in that the US did not import from Iraq back then so that a larger part of oil markets can be controlled by the US or affiliates in trade (Gonzalez, 2009).
Economically, the stability of Iraq depended highly on the amount of resources that the USA would leave behind when finally retreat was to be called. Considering this, the hunt for Saddam cost more lives of Iraq civilians than it did to Saddam’s soldiers. As a collaborative move by the US and other nations, rebuilding of Iraq was supposed to commence one a government was put in place. However, the rebuilding of Iraq was to consume funds that could have been redirected to other sectors. The levels of damage through destroyed resources give examples of the harm that US foreign policy has caused to nations where it has been applied.
Obama’s Motives for Libya Conflict Intervention
The Libyan conflict as analyzed by many analysts cannot be placed within one theoretical background. As much as there are many theories that can define the reason for the situation and the choice by foreign leaders to intervene, one clear theory cannot be drawn due to the fact there are a few traces of elements that can be seen in any of the theories. Analyzing the heavy present of highly trained military that are overseeing this situation, it is easy to predict that if the leaders wished for this to end; it would in a very short period of time. With an update on the recent execution of the Libyan leader after capture, it can still be predicted that the personnel involved in the capture executed him in order to hide or mask a conspiracy.
Going by the reasons President Obama gave to the members of the congress on the U.S. involvement, it can be taken that the International Humanitarian intervention is aimed at controlling the situation in order to prevent crimes against humanity. When viewed through the stand point of a Libyan citizen, it could be hard to formulate the actual meaning of the involvement. However, Obama has emphasized that the presence of U.S. forces in Libya is part of the responsibility of the U.S. Foreign Policy. With Libya in political and humanitarian turmoil, Obama ascertains that the intervention would be aimed at preventing humanitarian catastrophe and breach on international security (Gibson, 2011). Whether a promise or not that the U.S. military presence in Libya would be short lived, it’ll be proven with time now that Gaddafi is out of the picture as we speak.
Taking the USA history to consideration, the involvement of they she and her allies have on the Libyan crisis is a form of distraction in order to restore some of the blame it bears for actions of supporting and putting dictator leaders to power. The ‘Iraq Syndrome’, is one among the issues that the US may be in need to get rid from their system. It is through them that Saddam Hussein rose to power. With all the atrocities that he committed, the US presence was at near proximity to stop it but it did not. Now that Libya is in the same state of political and under the leadership of a tyrannical leader, the US would like to get involved in order to restore her damaged image. Given the recent events that took place in Tunisia and Egypt (and uprising in Bahrain and Yemen), it is clear that the African region is undergoing some form of revolution. The main aim as to why the US is involved in this war is to make a stop to the revolution that Libya and other neighboring countries had assumed. Specifically, Gaddafi was a regional rival of imperialism and gave the US and her allies the opportunity to intervene the revolution.
The actuality of the situation and the purposes the intervention is aimed at addressing may conflict. This is because the US believes that it is of good course to take the intervention wand by applying the restricting measures that it has. On the other hand, the National Transitional Council under the coalition does not stand as a guarantee that common revolution would be achieved by the closure of the Libyan air space. It is through this reason that the US and its allies will enter in to more of such like agreements with the aim of stopping the revolution that is taking place within the Libyan region. Success can be measured in very tiny bits in this case because many of the countries East of Libya may not be revolutionary states but neither are they imperialists.
The reality of the situation is that when all is said and set, doing happens to be the hardest things to achieve. The National Transitional Council is put in the position it is by a mere agreement that was signed. Besides the signing and the signatures that traded hands, it is still difficulty for the situation to change or even get better. This is because the National Transitional Council doesn’t have the power and the means to control the movement it tries to represent. The reality is that the revolution is not a centralized and organized movement and neither is the National Transitional Council the ultimate solution. If time was taken by the revolutionaries to predict and get their benefits from the intervention, there would be the risk that many people who share a different opinion would not be represented. The risky part of this would be in the event of anything going wrong. Through the intervention, the US and the EU may achieve division between pro-Western iron-fist leadership east and diplomacy in the west of Libya.
The UN resolution aimed to use peaceful negotiations to resolve the conflict hence strengthening the position of the insurgents to create an impasse. Given there was the possibility that Gaddafi could give up power voluntarily, the nation’s disintegration could have happened and would have led to the New Civil War. Since he did not, the intervention tactic changed shape and led to the developments that have taken place in the recent past.
By default, the aim of US foreign policy is to put things back to normal once the U.S intervenes in any war or conflict. However, considering the culture of war that the US is known for, it is hard for peaceful negotiation and war-free interventions. Through this, it seems that the peace of the world depends on the death of many people in the search of one key person. The lives of people that are put to danger by intervention to conflicts proves that the US foreign policy is faulty and more damaging to peace than constructive.
Constrains to Achieving International Peace
US foreign policy has done more harm than good in that the negative impacts of war have been felt more than the positive impacts of any other undertakings. The collapse of markets due to exit of investors and resource providers has been a direct impact of these highly classified wars. The case of Libya in terms of oil production has led to the rising of oil products following the period of trade stagnation. The market share that was served by Libyan oil was compensated by a shortage of the product and resulting hikes in trading prices. At this point it means that the effects of US foreign policy are much negative on the ground than they seem on the paper. For this reason, world peace will not be achieved through the current US foreign policy
Considering the issue of Haiti’s earthquake, national security of the nation substantially went down following uprising of gangs that engaged in criminal activities. Nations from all the over the world went to the rescue for Haiti through monetary and material contribution to make the situation better. The relation between the Haiti case and the context of this paper is through the determinant of what can and what cannot be controlled through the use of force or military suppression. This case links up the global economic crisis that the world has been faced with since the start of the 21st century. Considering that nations and economies struggling to savage the remaining resources on the surface of the earth, the world peace is further deteriorating. Developing nations that had started to make an impact in global markets are retreating hence their level of sustaining a regular economic growth going further south.
Considering the above perspective of the world and some variables that determine world peace, it is clear that US exercises a regime controlled by a culture of war and domination rather than peace and democracy. If at all the US foreign policy cared for world peace, it would address the vital causes of unrest. By so doing, instead of spending billions of dollars in fighting wars and feeding victims of the same wars, it should put up a basis for embracing economies of scale. This way the world unrest that is leading to world leaders refusal to exit office even after being beaten at the ballot, nations attacking nations to take control of resources like Iraq did to Kuwait, internal wrangles uprising from within countries over limited resources, and cold war extended to the marketing strategies.
It is clear that the US foreign policy makes US more of an empire rather than a republic. This is because when viewed from a terrorists’ standpoint, the US through her foreign policy can attack and launch offensive against any nation that engages in suspicious activities. For this reason, the US can be viewed as the official terrorist whose offensives go uninvestigated or justified. When Saddam Hussein massacred thousands of civilians in his territory for having protested against him, the US inspite of prior knowledge to this, decided not to do anything. More than a decade later, the search for Saddam commenced, this time under the accusation of possessing nuclear weapons. Following his capture and no recovery of the weapons, he was sentenced to hanging over other claims that were totally unrelated to the reason for his search.
The US foreign policy, inspite of that demands that it makes, the US use it to intimidate less powerful nations and leaders. The control of the world through this foreign policy puts the US at the status of an empire rather than a republic.