Since the United States is one of the last remaining super powersof the world, wehave the obligation to maintain and support good relations with thesmaller and weakernations throughout the world. We should take full advantage of thisauthority in severaldifferent ways. First the U.S. must focus on investing and trading withthose nations whohave yet to become economic powers; second, we must implement a consistentforeignpolicy towards the Middle Eastern nations: third, the United States needsto respect theattempts and results of the democratization and religious revivals in theMiddle East andLatin America, while taking a passive role in letting the a Western typeof democracy takeits course: and forth, the U.
S. must ease and downplay its conflict withthose civilizationswho dislike the “Western people” and their way of life.
Obviously, foreign investment is necessary for the future ofdeveloping othernations as well as our own. There must be an emphasis on foreigninvestment and trade,otherwise the third world nations will continue to fall behindeconomically, technologically,and domestically, which could lead to an economic downfall for the U.
S. aswell. Thequestion then arises as to what the United States must do in order to havelarge tradeagreements with other countries other than Japan and Mexico. In order forthe U.S. toplay a more active role in the economic and political development of manyof thesedeveloping nations, it must first accept a different philosophy than itscurrent one. First, itis imperative for the United States to play a similar role in LatinAmerica to the one Japanhas played with many of the developing nations in East Asia.The U.S.
neighbors LatinAmerica, and if it wants to play the role of big brother, it must acceptthe responsibility. Japan has invested, traded, and been a guide for many of it’s neighboringcountries in EastAsia, making them grow politically and economically while also profitingeconomicallyitself (Japan Remains 1996). The U.S. must realize that the economies ofLatin AmericanNations will play an important part in the future of our own economy, andthat it mustbegin to lead, invest, and aid not just Mexico, but countries such asPeru, Argentina,Bolivia, and Columbia into the twenty first century. The mainstay inAmerican foreignpolicy has always been to promote and instill democracy. However, inorder to do this in aforeign nation, the U.S. must be able to first establish a viable economicrelationship andsystem within the desired nations. We should not expect or want a nationto switch from atotal authoritarian government to a market economy; doing so would be adisaster. Theformer Soviet Union is a notable example of this philosophy.Instead,the U.S. has to bewilling to allow developing to nations invest in U.S. markets before weinvest in theirs. Inreturn, a viable export / import system will be established. But it isessential that theeconomy of the developing nation be monitored and run by its owngovernment, and theUnited States should only be there for advising purposes. When areasonable system hasfinally been achieved, then–not right away–a more American, laissez -faire type ofeconomic network will be allowed to grow. If The greatest challenge the United States faces is implementing aforeign policy thatis consistent throughout the Middle East. Islamic nations aren’t likelyto be responsive toideas such as human rights, and democracy. These nations will never beresponsive towestern ideas when the United States continues to levy sanctions againstthem. The U.S.
is lucky that it has an ally in Saudi Arabia and Israel, allowing them toimplement many ofthese foreign policy agendas against the other Middle Eastern countries,without having toface serious economic consequences in the oil and gas industry. Oddlyenough though,Saudi Arabia is probably as much against western ideologies as any nationin the MiddleEast. Women do not have equal rights, torture is frequent, there is noseparation betweenchurch and state, and Saudi Arabia is extremely far from developing anysort of democracy(Miller 58).Now, when the U.S. promotes democracy and human rights, whydoes itsupport one country and condemn the next? Throughout the Cold War,American foreignpolicy would give aid to any nation opposing communism. So during thattime the U.S.
developed a “you’re either with us or against us” type of policy. Withthat type of policy,many of the Middle Eastern countries became so called enemies with theU.S., which hasled to unrest and hatred of western democracies. In this time of globaleconomics, theUnited States cannot pick and choose which countries to invest in. Inorder for the U.S. todefeat the challenges it faces in the Middle East, it must start bysupporting the entireMiddle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia may be the most attractive offers,but Syria and evenIran have vast resources that will be very valuable to our economy in thefuture.
Next, the United States must respond to the problems ofdemocratization andreligious revival in the Middle East and Latin America. In the MiddleEast, there seems tobe the notion that attempts at democratization would lead to the downfallof minorityrights. As Judith Miller pointed out, “The promotion of free electionsimmediately is likelyto lead to the triumph of Islamic groups that have no commitment todemocracy in anyrecognizable or meaningful form” (Miller 59). What the United States mustdo is establisha representational or parliamentary process that recognizes all forms ofpolitical action. Simply promoting free elections would lead to a backlash indemocratization efforts. Thefear is in the idea of one group outlawing another. A democracy might bebased onmajoritarian rule; but all groups, whether they be Islamic fundamentalistor even Christian,must be able to participate in the political process. Similarly, theUnited States must showcomplete support for the democratic process in Latin America. WhenSalvador Allendewas elected President of Chile, the West feared the thought of a completeMarxistgovernment (Rosenberg 28). What needs to be respected is not thepolitical ideology ofone group or country, but rather its democratic process. ” Becausedemocracy neitherforms countries nor strengthens them initially, a multiparty system isbest suited to nationsthat already have a established bureaucracy and a middle class which paysincome tax andwhere the main issues of property, and power-sharing have been resolved,leaving twopoliticians, or parties to argue about the budgets, and letting the taxpayers decide whoshould come to power” (Kaplan E9). A problem then arises as to the issue of Islamic and Christianrevivalism. How theUnited States deals with this problem is crucial in maintaining itsleadership and futureeconomic entity’s in both regions. The revival of Islam in the MiddleEast is a reaction toWestern encroachment during and after the Cold War. Traditionalistsbelieve that byopening up to Western culture they are losing their true faith in Islam.
The first step insolving this problem might be to recognize that Muslim nations do notembrace everyaspect of liberalism. If the United States can establish itself as alegitimate foreign investorand/or trading partner, rejection of Western philosophies will soon beginto diminish. TheU.S. should still stand strong in its fight to combat terrorism andradical militant groups,but must also stop showing favoritism in the region (i.e. Saudi Arabia).
The democraticprocess can work, but it needs to show the nations of the Middle East thatit can bereconciled with religious revival. This is done by allowing groups,majority or minority, thechance to reap in the rewards of democracy.
Can religious revival be intertwined with economic development ordemocracy in Latin America? The case of Brazil gives us good evidence as to whetherit can or cannot. “The theory of liberation grew out of the militant priests’ directinvolvement with theworking poor, both urban and rural” (Haynes 100). In Brazil, the poorhave always beenembraced by the church. Priests have worked to show that the church istaking an activerole in the impoverished lives of that country. The idea began to spreadthrough out theslums and the pueblos, and the poor were soon being encouraged toparticipate in somesort of political movement, no matter how minor or trivial it seemed.
This was the firstevidence of a nation undergoing a religious revival and taking stepstoward developmentand democracy. It has been proven that participation in a regime allowsfor a greater wealthof resources economically and politically, while encouraging development.
But, if we tryto impose our will by force or intimidation, there will be few willingvolunteers to followand join such a movement.Again, the United States needs to respect theefforts ofreligious revival because it is returning Christianity or Islam to itsroots just as the U.S. istrying to establish democracy to its most basic fundamental aspect inmany of thesedeveloping nations. The U.S. must allow democracy, in whatever form ittakes, to grow. This means concentrating on being empathetic and tolerant to the politicaland economicdevelopments that might occur during this time of change, rather thantaking forcefulactions that many believe is necessary. The role the United States tookwhen communismwas being defeated in Eastern Europe and the Western way of life was beingpushed to theforefront is the same approach it needs to take with most of thesedeveloping nations.
Since the United States is at it’s peak of power in relation toother civilizations, andWestern military power is unrivaled, the U.S. must attempt redefine itimage in the non-Western part of the world. “The United States dominates the internationalpolitical,security, and economic institutions with Western countries such asBritain, Germany, andFrance. All of these countries maintain extraordinarily close relationswith each other,excluding the lesser and largely non-Western countries. Decisions made atthe UnitedNations Security Council or in the International Monetary Fund thatreflect the interest ofthe United States and its Western allies are presented to the world asreflecting the desiresof the world community” (Huntington 39). This type of selfish globalpolicy can not betolerated if the United States wishes to be the leader in binding a “WorldCommunity.” The non-westerners view this global decision making in such a way such ineffect makes”the West look as if it is using its international institutions, militarypower, and economicresources to run the world in ways that will maintain Westernpredominance, protectWestern interest and promote Western political and economic values”(Huntington 40). These views do have merit to them nonetheless, because the United Statesdoes use itworldly powers to influence these international councils in situationswhen the so calledanti-American countries are involved. Just because one nationscivilization and culture aretotally different from that of the Western nations, the US should not deemwhich culturesare acceptable and non-acceptable in the realm of the world. Because forthe most part asHuntington states “Western ideas such as individualism, liberalism,constitutionalism,human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets,the separation ofchurch and state, often have little in Islamic, Confucian, Hindu, Buddhistor Orthodoxcultures” (Huntington 40). By trying to influence its views through theUnited Nations andInternational Monetary Fund on the non-Western Countries, the U.S. is infact justbuilding up more negative sentiment towards itself, which can be seen inthe support forfundamentalism of all types by the younger generation in the non-Westerncultures. If theU.S. does not attempt to change it’s image in the near future, a newgeneration offundamentalist will begin carry out all sorts of terroristic activityagainst the U.S. that willbe more devastating than the World Trade Center Bombing , because hatetowards theWest will be have been instilled sense birth, and the terrorist will feelthat means arejustifying the cause.
It is in these policies, agendas, and attempts at foreigninvestment, and humblenessthroughout the world that the United States will be able to maintain itsclassification as aworld power, economically, politically, and socially. If the UnitedStates does not act uponthese ideas and problems in the near future the results might not beimmediate; but we willsee the effects well into the twenty- first century when we are no longerregarded as thesuper power we once were.
BibliographyHaynes, Jeff . Religion in Third World Politics. Boulder, Colorado:LyneeRienner, 1994.
Huntington, Samuel. “The Clash of Civilizations: The West Versus theRest.” Foreign Affiars Vol.72 (1993). No.3: 39-41.
” Japan Remains Pacific’s Largest Trading Partner.” Sunday Star (1996):StarPublications, (Maylasia) Berhad. (Transmitted From Netscape). Kaplan, Robert. “Democracy’s Trap.” New York Times 24 Dec. 1995: E9Kennedy, Paul.Winners and Losers in the Developing World: Preparingthe TwentyFirst Century. New York: Random House, 1993.
Miller, Judith.”The Challenge of Radical Islam.” The Other World:Culture and Politicsin the Third World (1993) 57-58.
Rosenberg, Tina. “Beyond Election.” The Other World: Culture andPolitics in theThird World (1993) 28.
Savona, Dave. “Choosing a Nerve Center Overseas.” Foreign Trade Nov.
Annotated BibliographyHaynes, Jeff. Religion in Third World Politics.Boulder, Colorado:Lynee Rienner,1994 .This is a book concerning Religion in thepolitical realm ofthird world nations. It focuses on the religions of Islam andChristianity, andexamines their positions within the major Third World nations such asIran, Iraq,Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Peru, and Chile. Haynes addresses the topic ofreligion inthird world politics by showing us the parallels, and the conflictsthey face withinthese nations. A brief history of the situation is usually given, andis followed by theproblems and successes the religions have had within the desiredcountry. Hanyes offershis own solutions to many of the dilemmas described within his book.
This sourceprovided very useful information particularly on the involvementChristianity in thepolitical movement of Brazil.
Huntington, Samuel. “The Clash of Civilizations: The West Versus theRest.” Foreign Affairs Vol. 72 (1993). No. 3: 39-41.This was asection ofHuntington’s article The Clash of Civilizations. He explains howthe Westdominates the international economic, security, and politicalinstitutions, andhow many countries are striving for a “Western” way of life. He alsotalks abouthow those countries who’s citizens dislike how the west uses itspower in the UnitedNations, to enforce its will upon others. He lists thedifferences between the Westernideas and the “non-Western” and gives ideas on how to have a “universalcivilization.” Huntington’s article gave many valid points ondealing with conflicts,and ways to go about resolving them.
“Japan Remains Pacific’s Largest Trading Partner.” Sunday Star (1996):StarPublications, (Maylasia) Berhad. (Transmitted from Netscape).
This articlewas transmitted off the World Wide Web by using Netscape. It was anews articlefrom the Malaysian paper Sunday Star, that gave an insight intohow Japan hasbecome the Pacific’s largest partner. The paper also showed somestatistics aboutJapan, and the other major players that trade with Pacific countriessuch Vietnam,Malaysia, Hong Kong, South Korea and Cambodia. This news paper articlewas usedbecause it came from country in the Pacific and gave a definite statuson Japan’s economicdominance in the region. Kaplan, Robert. “Democracy’s Trap.” New York Times 24 Dec. 1995: E9.
This is a editorial article for the general public about how theUnited States shouldstop trying so passionately to establish multiparty systems in everythird world nation. Itsnot that Kaplan is against the instilling of democratic ideas indeveloping nations, but hebelieves the U.S. should go about it in a different way. Heexplains how we must letthe idea grow and go through natural process within the country, eventhough it might notstrengthen the nation at first. Kaplan also says that the U.S. shouldshift its emphasis fromtrying to hold elections for third world nations, to promotingfamily planning,environmental and urban renewal. Kennnedy, Paul. Winners and Losers in the Developing World: Preparing theTwentyFirst Century. New York: Random House, 1993.
Miller, Judith. “The Challenge of Radical Islam.” The Other World:Culture and Politicsin the Third World. (1993) 44-56.In this article, Miller explainsthe challenges the westmust face in dealing with all the different aspects of the IslamicReligion in the MiddleEast. Since there are so many different sects, and branches to thereligion, Millerexplains what the major characteristics are of each group, whetherthey are extremistmilitants, devote Muslims, or terrorist. For the most part, shepaves the way of howthe West should go about in dealing with Islamic nations, and howforms ofdemocracy might be instilled in many of these nations. She alsotells hownegative most of these countries feel towards Western ideologies,but also showsthe allies the West has built in the region with Egypt, and SaudiArabia. Millers articlewas very informative on the subject Islam, and the way Westernforeign policies shouldact towards it.
Rosenberg, Tina. “Beyond Elections.” The Other World: Cultureand Politicsin the Third World. (1993) 28.In this brief article, Tina Rosenbergtalks abouthow the US should react to the Governments that are taking helm inmany of the countriesof South and Central America. She explains how a Marxist Governmentwas elected inthe country of Chile by a democratic process involving most of itscitizens. Thisarticle was very brief, and was used solely because it tells thatthe West must showthe respect to this country for participating in a type of democraticprocess, evena Marxist government was elected.
Savona, Dave. “Choosing a Nerve Center Overseas.” Foreign Trade. Nov.
1995: 11-22, 50.In this article that comes from a magazine dedicatedstrictly to that offoreign Trade, Dave Savona tells of the importance of establishing atype ofregional headquarters in countries overseas. He explains how it isessential for Americancompanies to invest in overseas markets, not just in countries such asGermany, andJapan, but too rising nations such as Brazil, Chile, Argentina, HongKong, Australia, andHungary. It informs as to the natural resources that each countryoffers, and the economicopportunities available for the U.S. and the desired nation. Thissource was usedprimarily for its opinion of investing in the countries of Braziland Chile by theU.S.
Cite this Future Involvement in Foreign Affairs
Future Involvement in Foreign Affairs. (2019, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/future-involvement-in-foreign-affairs/