open Democracy News Analysis - A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims, Bob Burnett - Comments

D.Dimitrov, Hamburg on "A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"

D.Dimitrov, Hamburg — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:49:27 +0000

The next American leaders can be idealistic in terms of domestic policy, foreign policy needs realism (not simply Morgethau's or Watz's, some combination with the social constructivism of Alexander Wendt, of this whole thing here is about ideology) and understanding of the politics of power. The military commitment is o.k., the point is what the American president does with his military. Crusading all over the world is one option, taking care of world stability and protecting American and Western interests (which are to be defined in accordance with some degree of idealism and a considerable commitment to international law)is another.

Idealism is great,... but we should not be too normative about world politics,...the above implied isolationist American position will cause less good than harm, since the unfilled security vacuum that an American military withdrawal from world stage would leave behind will cause devastative chaos up to destruction of international institutions and massive regional escalations of conflicting interests.

Especially in the case of the constitutional role of the American president it is definitely about his/her ideological profile and his/her leadership qualities, constraining lobbies and party lines are practically surmountable. Therefore character and personality is very important.

For 2008 Obama is the best candidate, he is real and has leadership qualities. In my opinion Americas best presidents always were Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Obama has certain qualities of both.

Again, just to set the record straight, too normative ideas and solutions are dangerous, e.g. democratization of the Middle East, in the case of Saudi Arabia democratization would mean overthrow of the autocrats (House of Al Saud), irrespective if through "nurturing democracy", the consequence of empowerment of the people will be a fundamentalist Wahhabi Theocracy, basically a terror-state, a real one.

KVB Tharoor on "A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"

KVB Tharoor — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:08:42 +0000

Surely there has to be more to liberal foreign policy than this. Though I agree in "principle" with most of these principles, such broadsided attempts to carve out a new direction for US foreign policy point to the very problem liberals face in America. What liberals in the US need to urge is a carefully re-balance of the country engages (and disengages) with the world. This is a dangerous task, and can easily lapse into vacillating ambiguity (a common trait amongst today's ambitious Dems). Yet it is not helped by outright (and quite reactionary) rejection of the current trajectory of US policy, however unsound. Washington can't start from scratch.

joefranks69 on "A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"

joefranks69 — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:50:01 +0000

11. It is OK if US-based multinational corporations take a hit.

Foreign policy under both "liberal" and "conservative" administrations has acted as if the inverse were the golden rule, the law and the prophets.

Developing countries want to renege on debts? Let them. It isn't the US government's place to act like international investors' repo man. Besides, the lenders knew damn well when they gave large loans to dictators that they may never well see any return on their investment. Risk is factored into interest rate. Let them take the hit, rather than the dirt poor people of the country, who likely never saw the money in the first place.

A third-world country wants to nationalize a company owned in part by a US corporation, or protect an infant industry? Great! Many of today's wealthy countries used downright nationalized industries to grow; and damn near all of today's wealthy countries used one or more forms of protectionism when they were developing. Just because neoliberal ideologues are widely ignorant of this doesn't mean that leaders in poor countries don't know it, and may want to take advantage of protectionist measures. The US government should stay out of the way when developing countries want to engage in the same kind of policies today's rich countries used when they were developing.

thinktank on "A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"

thinktank — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:55:47 +0000

International Institute of Management (IIM) released a new report warning about the U.S. economic risks. The report warns against costly policy mistakes and provides a detailed analysis of the economic, social and geopolitical risks facing the United States

The complete text of the report is available at:

http://www.iim-edu.org/u.s.economyrisks/

amh on "A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"

amh — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:04:28 +0000

I was surprised and disappointed to read the first several new articles yesterday, this one in particular stood out:

(1) as a watered-down regurgitation of so many other more robust statements made in other publications.

(2) And, the article immediately takes the stance "Bush and the Right are bad, the Left is good and is here to save America." And it carries this thread throughout the 10 recommendations. Speaking in such simplistic, absolute terms makes this article read like an email forward whose only purpose is to allow liberals to pat themselves on the back. (And I consider myself a liberal).

kwatt on "A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"

kwatt — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:58:24 +0000

More liberal gibberish!

>>>>

Bush's election was legal and vote recounts proved it.

What civil right have you lost?

Unlawful? Care to cite an example?

More than 40 nations are part of the Iraq War coalition. Multi enough for you?

Unilateral? Give me a break, liar.

Japan, The French Revolution, The US Revolution, Germany, Italy, Spain, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. All had non-democratic governments before violent conflict IMPOSED change.

A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims, Bob Burnett

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0000

A post-Bush vision of the United States role in the world needs clear principles to guide it, says Bob Burnett. Read the rest of this post...