2008 Woodie Awards
Foreign policy causes more harm than not
Catherine Morrisey
Issue date: 4/21/08 Section: Editorials
Ronald Reagan's memoirs contain a quote that nicely sum up the general overview of foreign policy for American conservatism. He wrote: "I always felt that from our deeds it must be clear to anyone that Americans were a moral people who, starting at the birth of the nation, had only used our powers as a force of good in the world."
The guy paints a pretty picture, doesn't he? This notion that America can become politically, militarily and economically involved with countries and miraculously portray good intentions is ambitious, but also entirely unrealistic.
It is unrealistic because there is no such thing as absolute neutrality within the realms of international politics. Instead, relative neutrality - or seeing something as neutral from one country's perspective - is the only card countries are allowed to deal.
This raises the question of whether we, the United States in all of its global endeavors, are destined to have enemies. Perhaps the more realistic way of posing this question is not whether the United States will have enemies, but whether the United States will continue to have enemies.
Foreign policy in America has asserted the nation as an aggressor rather than as a mediator between other countries. Typically, we favor the country that will give us the most benefits. We overlook human rights, ethics and, at times, common sense. And more often than not, we do it all in the name of profit.
Does it all really amount to profit, though? Outside the notions of monetary gain, is this nation really benefiting from limited tolerance and narrow-minded attitudes dictating the ways in which other nations are treated?
Barack Obama announced in a primary debate that he would speak with leaders of even hostile nations. He was ridiculed and once again, labeled as inexperienced. Perhaps this recommendation for a shift in foreign policy tactics, however, is not a signal of inexperience, but one of an evolved nature.
You see, the foreign policy the United States has been practicing since the Cold War hasn't done a whole lot in preserving world peace, nor guaranteeing the safety of Americans. Bombs and guns do not promise safety. Constantly defending doesn't promise an image as a strong world leader.
Trying new tactics toward foreign policy and diplomatic relations should not be something that haunts the average American. In the worst-case scenario, countries that already hate the political, religious, social and economic tendencies of America will continue to dislike us.
But if peace is the ultimate goal (and ironically, the end objective of peace is always stressed when justifying military action), then perhaps we are to the point when conversing with our so-called enemies is to the only chance left at obtaining our goal of peace.
- Catherine Morrisey is a senior history major and a Mirror columnist.
The guy paints a pretty picture, doesn't he? This notion that America can become politically, militarily and economically involved with countries and miraculously portray good intentions is ambitious, but also entirely unrealistic.
It is unrealistic because there is no such thing as absolute neutrality within the realms of international politics. Instead, relative neutrality - or seeing something as neutral from one country's perspective - is the only card countries are allowed to deal.
This raises the question of whether we, the United States in all of its global endeavors, are destined to have enemies. Perhaps the more realistic way of posing this question is not whether the United States will have enemies, but whether the United States will continue to have enemies.
Foreign policy in America has asserted the nation as an aggressor rather than as a mediator between other countries. Typically, we favor the country that will give us the most benefits. We overlook human rights, ethics and, at times, common sense. And more often than not, we do it all in the name of profit.
Does it all really amount to profit, though? Outside the notions of monetary gain, is this nation really benefiting from limited tolerance and narrow-minded attitudes dictating the ways in which other nations are treated?
Barack Obama announced in a primary debate that he would speak with leaders of even hostile nations. He was ridiculed and once again, labeled as inexperienced. Perhaps this recommendation for a shift in foreign policy tactics, however, is not a signal of inexperience, but one of an evolved nature.
You see, the foreign policy the United States has been practicing since the Cold War hasn't done a whole lot in preserving world peace, nor guaranteeing the safety of Americans. Bombs and guns do not promise safety. Constantly defending doesn't promise an image as a strong world leader.
Trying new tactics toward foreign policy and diplomatic relations should not be something that haunts the average American. In the worst-case scenario, countries that already hate the political, religious, social and economic tendencies of America will continue to dislike us.
But if peace is the ultimate goal (and ironically, the end objective of peace is always stressed when justifying military action), then perhaps we are to the point when conversing with our so-called enemies is to the only chance left at obtaining our goal of peace.
- Catherine Morrisey is a senior history major and a Mirror columnist.
Be the first to comment on this story