Mark West
Diplomatic incentives
By Mark West
"'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." — George Washington
Following the 2000 election the nation expected to see exactly what a "compassionate conservative" really is. President George W. Bush embarked on his first term with a resolute focus upon getting something done in Washington on domestic policy. His presidency was supposed to be marked by a revolutionary domestic agenda that would deal with reforming taxes, social security and health care. However, the Almighty dealt President Bush and America a precarious hand with which we together as a nation would have to pull together a winner.
Foreign policy was pushed to the forefront of American life in the wake of the tragic terrorist attacks of 9/11. Bush's inauguration and the days that followed gave no hint toward the direction that our nation would soon be turned by this tragedy. Determined not to allow such an atrocious event to repeat itself, President Bush invaded Afghanistan in response to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Then came what is going to be historically known as the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war. The Bush Doctrine calls for the use of American military in a pre-emptive push to keep terrorist states and nations that harbor terrorist from hitting us. Bush named the Axis of Evil which included Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
During the 2004 campaign, President Bush's opponents chided him for what they saw as unwillingness on his part to work with the other nations of the world in regard to the war on terror. Criticism encompassed the President calling into question his every tactical and diplomatic decision involving the war on terror.
Senator John F. Kerry called for a global test that all international military action must pass before implementation. I think that the idea could be used a little differently. I believe that a global test has taken place in the years following 9/11, composed of one question, "Who will stand beside America for better or for worse?" I believe that the war on terrorism disclosed for the American public who our true friends are. We can now also see the true colors of those fair-weather friends who flock to us in the good times and scatter from us in the bad times.
George Washington was very correct to state that we need to "steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." Our first President had a familiarity with how dangerous the wrong alliances in the foreign world can be. Permanent alliances hamper our leaders from acting international in our best interests. Sometimes nations will support our interests, other times they will not. That is why our foreign alliances need not be permanent alliances. Each nation can only be counted upon when their own best interests are involved.
Several situations peer over the horizon on the President's next term. Continuing to deal with the Axis of Evil with bringing democracy to Iraz and dealing with Iran and North Koreas desire toward becoming nuclear powers. The United Nations is embroiled in the Oil For Food fiasco. Terrorism must be held in check globally. Africa cannot continue to be a back-burner issue in foreign policy. Palestine-Israeli relations will continue to be a primary concern. The death of Yassar Arafat may provide the necessary momentum that could get bring resolution to that conflict. Russia appears to be slipping away from democracy. How will the President handle these corpulent challenges?
Presuming that he will keep his promises of diplomacy, we will probably see an exorbitant amount of talking done on the world stage for the next four years. President Bush knows that he needs different allies for different scenarios in the world; however, he will be unwilling to compromise American interests in order to secure an ally.
I wonder if we expect too much of the President? We have elected him as the President of the United States of America, not the world. We have no right to expect him to solve every problem the world encounters. What we do have the right to expect is that as our President he will put America first in every foreign policy decision that he makes.
That is what President George Washington means. Alliances with foreign nations must come to an end when America's interests are in jeopardy. Nations will have plenty of opportunity to ally with America in future global scenarios. However, they must next expect our President to compromise our national interests in order to get them "on board." A good President will know the difference between an ally and an acquaintance. Call it what you want, I believe that foreign nations have a diplomatic incentive to respect the best interests of the other nations in the world...including ours!
© Mark West
"'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." — George Washington
Following the 2000 election the nation expected to see exactly what a "compassionate conservative" really is. President George W. Bush embarked on his first term with a resolute focus upon getting something done in Washington on domestic policy. His presidency was supposed to be marked by a revolutionary domestic agenda that would deal with reforming taxes, social security and health care. However, the Almighty dealt President Bush and America a precarious hand with which we together as a nation would have to pull together a winner.
Foreign policy was pushed to the forefront of American life in the wake of the tragic terrorist attacks of 9/11. Bush's inauguration and the days that followed gave no hint toward the direction that our nation would soon be turned by this tragedy. Determined not to allow such an atrocious event to repeat itself, President Bush invaded Afghanistan in response to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Then came what is going to be historically known as the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war. The Bush Doctrine calls for the use of American military in a pre-emptive push to keep terrorist states and nations that harbor terrorist from hitting us. Bush named the Axis of Evil which included Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
During the 2004 campaign, President Bush's opponents chided him for what they saw as unwillingness on his part to work with the other nations of the world in regard to the war on terror. Criticism encompassed the President calling into question his every tactical and diplomatic decision involving the war on terror.
Senator John F. Kerry called for a global test that all international military action must pass before implementation. I think that the idea could be used a little differently. I believe that a global test has taken place in the years following 9/11, composed of one question, "Who will stand beside America for better or for worse?" I believe that the war on terrorism disclosed for the American public who our true friends are. We can now also see the true colors of those fair-weather friends who flock to us in the good times and scatter from us in the bad times.
George Washington was very correct to state that we need to "steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." Our first President had a familiarity with how dangerous the wrong alliances in the foreign world can be. Permanent alliances hamper our leaders from acting international in our best interests. Sometimes nations will support our interests, other times they will not. That is why our foreign alliances need not be permanent alliances. Each nation can only be counted upon when their own best interests are involved.
Several situations peer over the horizon on the President's next term. Continuing to deal with the Axis of Evil with bringing democracy to Iraz and dealing with Iran and North Koreas desire toward becoming nuclear powers. The United Nations is embroiled in the Oil For Food fiasco. Terrorism must be held in check globally. Africa cannot continue to be a back-burner issue in foreign policy. Palestine-Israeli relations will continue to be a primary concern. The death of Yassar Arafat may provide the necessary momentum that could get bring resolution to that conflict. Russia appears to be slipping away from democracy. How will the President handle these corpulent challenges?
Presuming that he will keep his promises of diplomacy, we will probably see an exorbitant amount of talking done on the world stage for the next four years. President Bush knows that he needs different allies for different scenarios in the world; however, he will be unwilling to compromise American interests in order to secure an ally.
I wonder if we expect too much of the President? We have elected him as the President of the United States of America, not the world. We have no right to expect him to solve every problem the world encounters. What we do have the right to expect is that as our President he will put America first in every foreign policy decision that he makes.
That is what President George Washington means. Alliances with foreign nations must come to an end when America's interests are in jeopardy. Nations will have plenty of opportunity to ally with America in future global scenarios. However, they must next expect our President to compromise our national interests in order to get them "on board." A good President will know the difference between an ally and an acquaintance. Call it what you want, I believe that foreign nations have a diplomatic incentive to respect the best interests of the other nations in the world...including ours!
© Mark West
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
