Foreign Policy Part 3

I want to place this topic in a temporary period of rest, so I will do my best to state what I have already concluded and built upon in my previous posts.

Let us begin the conclusion with the intent of the Founders.

The Monroe Doctrine Points:

1. "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."

2. "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security."

3. "Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different."

4. "It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course."

I consider these 4 excerpts from Monroe's speech to be key points in foreign policy, a lot of which was influenced by his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to which we can assume a strong influence of his father, John Adams, who also resisted intervention of any kind in the British-French warring at the time. Certainly, I am no expert on the intentions and meaning of the Monroe Doctrine but here is a quick understanding of it.

Note the importance is that non-intervention is the goal, but surely it does not take a genius to see that Monroe has given a sphere of influence for the United States, to which intervention is given under certain circumstances, most notably an act of aggression from a European power over the newly independent countries in Latin America.

I do not wish to make this a history lesson or an in depth look at every detail of foreign policy, merely to establish a general principle upon which our foreign policy should be based upon.

We have seen a general intent by our Founders (though mainly an intent by the Founders whose positions prevailed in politics at the time, others such as Hamilton would have provided a different course) and through this we can to a general extent base our current policy, factoring for the change in the current state of our world versus the state of the world at the time such doctrine was established.

Here are the points to which I must make regarding any future foreign policy:

1. That the act of intervention of our power not supersede the importance of what we intervene in. Much can be said of this. The importance of why we intervene must never be lost. To do so would leave us with a reasonless action, upon which we would receive great criticism and lose both respect and confidence from those with which we aspire to have a good relationship with. Our action must always be in adherence to the reason. If we are to stop an unjust invasion of a country the act of our intervention must do just that. To go beyond anything but this is a demonstration of power, which loses sight of the importance. Any further action must be measured and should involve an authority greater than that of the American people. Many do not see the United Nations as a body capable of performing anything, which is why many would assume that we are entitled to perform such actions; but this is where our greatest criticism is received; perhaps we should do more to make it work, than choosing the path of go it alone.

2. If an act or acts by an oppressive nation go against the universal things which we hold as the rights of all men everywhere, then we must meet these acts with intervention of some kind. As I have said before, to do nothing is to invite such behavior to continue to breed in our world, when our intention should be that it not. To do nothing would be wrong, but to meet all such acts with war is obviously outside of our capability and would not be prudent for other reasons as well. So our actions must be measured in all circumstances, and meet all oppressive action in the same way that rules of engagement are used to meet a hostile force. Should the oppression be small, our action should be small, but as it rises in severity, so too should our reaction.

3. The purpose of war is to bring about peace. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...a time of war, and a time of peace." I have always found Ecclesiastes to be one of the most moving books within the Bible, my next post will probably involve it. War, such as it is, must always be the last resort and when used it must be terrible, quick and decisive. A war that is prepared is fought this way and ends quickly. A war that is not ends in disaster. The other thing that has always bothered me is that the purpose of any serviceman is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I think that we need to consider that our military should only be used for defense of our country against direct threats, but perhaps we need to devise a way to use a force for something else, such as a situation of genocide in Africa. I'm not sure how to do it, only that it should be comprised of volunteers and that they would know their purpose before entering it.

I strongly believe though that the most important part of foreign policy is right decisions. I know that both the Vietnam War and World War 2 could have been avoided with two different decisions. As I look back into the wars of our past, how many of them could have been avoided by making the right decision? People think that there are times in which we must go to war, this may be true, but the vast majority of wars can easily be avoided. If you are left wondering what should be done specifically in cases of foreign policy then I have succeeded, because the truth is simple: right action. Be not dismayed though, my only intent was to show that isolationism is not an answer and that our current disposition is wrong.