US Foreign Policy I
By Greg McCulley
Drafted 3 October 1999
����������� In this century, the United States has been a leader in shaping the world as we know it today.� Woodrow Wilson, the schoolteacher president, shook his finger at Americans and the world, proclaiming it our responsibility to teach the world how to act.� Today, the US continues to be a world leader and the last true superpower.� This essay looks at some of the principles the US is advocating internationally and at the issues with which she is currently involved.� We will see that some of the issues the US is involved with are driven by the principles she seeks to promote.
����������� Pacific access to open markets is a principle we have promoted for decades.� This open market system is the antithesis of the old Soviet model, the command economy.� The US seeks open markets because they are fundamental to our form of government.� We believe that people have the right to choose who they worship, who they want to represent them in government, and on what they spend their disposable income.� In the Soviet system, central planning agencies set quotas built into 5-year plans.� With no flexibility to respond to market demands, goods were forced on consumers at prices they had no choice but to pay.� The American position is that free market economies bottom line with greater levels of prosperity for all involved.� An issue relating to this is the trade war between Europe and American, dubbed by the press as the Banana War.
����������� The Banana War is a trade conflict in which the European Union favors fruit imported from Latin American growers.� These Latin American regions were former European colonies.� The American response was to block several European imports.� Another issue in the conflict was American hormone-treated beef, which was also banned by the Europeans.� The World Trade Organization has repeatedly told the European Union that its trade policy in this matter was illegal, but the WTO did not have the teeth to enforce the decision (The Economist, 6 Mar 99, 65).�
����������� Another principle the US espouses is notion that all people have entitlement to human rights.� This has been a major sticking point in US-China relations for many years.� Using this issue as justification for their position, many US senators have protested China?s designation of Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status.� Our leaders missed the mark on that point, obviously interpreting MFN to mean something above and beyond regular trade relations. In reality, MFN means normal trade relations exist between two countries and that in trade issues, the two countries involved treat each other the same as they would any other countries.� Human rights entered the picture when we insisted China meet certain of our human rights demands, including loosening of the restrictions on free speech and freeing democratic activists in China.� According to the 12 April 1999 issue of The Economist, China committed over 80% of the known execution in the year 1996.� When American lawmakers get wind of this kind of information, human rights demands on China escalate.� I believe that China has a ways to go in the area of human rights, but American congress members should become more informed when making MFN decisions.
����������� An issue that America is currently embroiled in that deals with human rights is the plight of Kosovo.� �When madmen like Slobodan Milosevic commit such acts of violence, it is just for America to be compelled to act.� Milosevic sought to conduct an ethnic cleansing of Albanians living in the province of Kosovo.� In so doing, he dislocated hundreds of thousands of refugees.� He also fired upon refugees and allegedly used them as human shields.� America has been involved in a bombing campaign aimed at destroying the machine that Milosevic uses to carry out this operation, and we have been the brunt of a lot of flack for assuming this role.� I believe we had an obligation to intercede on behalf of the people of Kosovo because of our position in the world.� We are the world's superpower, and that carries with it responsibility. I feel responsibility is an innate aspect of any power, which means America had the moral obligation to act.� As Thomas Aquinas illustrated in his analogy, people have an obligation to help those they encounter who are in need.� The Kosovars were in need of protection, and we had the ability to provide such protection.� As Sister Marcia Sichol states in her book, The Making of a Nuclear Peace, "Justice suffers when a just war is lost" (p. 26).� I think that her sentiments could be extended to also say that justice suffers when a just war is not fought for fear of political recrimination.
����������� As a closing comment, I'd like to tie the above two issues together and editorialize for a moment.� US-China relations have suffered as a result of the recent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.� We, as combatants in a just war, inadvertently attacked the sovereign soil of China.� This horrible mistake has had a political impact on our war effort in Kosovo, and at the same time has given China the diplomatic leverage she needed to gain entry into the World Trade Organization.� This situation reminds us that our actions in one part of the world can have a profound political impact elsewhere in the world.� I disagree with those commentators who paint China as opportunists in this matter; we committed a pernicious act, and they have every right to expect financial recompense.� The diplomatic recompense China is collecting because of this is simply par for the course.� Again we see, power brings with it responsibility.
����������� Men and nations are defined by their actions.� The United States, like most nations, has an evolving sense of her own principles and values.� This essay described how the US has been compelled to act based on issues relating to the economy and the basic entitlement to human rights.� I feel these two examples display American foreign policy orientation in the 20th century. �