There's currently a flap because Secretary of State Clinton has said she will not attempt to integrate discussions of human rights issues in more important negotiations on other issues with the Chinese. Human rights advocates are furious over her change in position since she was First Lady. She said, "We both know one another's positions on subjects like human rights and there's little chance that either of us will change our positions". She went on to say that we can't let issues where we know we disagree interfere with seeking mutually acceptable agreements on other important issues facing both countries.

Should we base our foreign policy on restricting our diplomatic relationships to countries that share all of our political, economic and cultural beliefs? Or should we "pick and choose" the bases of our foreign relations with various countries? Can we have sound relationships with countries which diametrically oppose our beliefs with regard to freedom or human rights?

I believe that we can--and should. I believe that our primary interest in conducting diplomacy should be in the long-term well-being of the U.S. Trying to use our leverage to encourage changes in cultural or political issues within those countries with whom we maintain diplomatic relationships should always be secondary to reaching agreements that assure the well-being of Americans.

It's not that I think human rights to be unimportant--it's just that there are other national objectives that might be more important. I think our national foreign policy has to be based on far more substantive issues--assuring the U.S. a supply of oil at reasonable prices, our national security, assuring peace in our homeland and in our hemisphere, maintaining cooperative and dependable trading partners, assuring that our diplomatic partners act peacefully with their regional neighbors, extinguish the sources of terrorism, etc.

Of course, our national agenda should identify things that are important within our culture--human and women's rights, freedom, a strong preference for a democratic form of government, the rule of law, religious freedom, etc.

But in practical terms, many of the countries with whom we might desire to have diplomatic relationships for strategic or economic reasons might not practice or even agree with our values on what I've called our "cultural" objectives. Should we make the establishment of solid diplomatic relationships with other countries conditional on a satisfactory achievement of all of our list of national objectives? Or should we be willing to give up on some to achieve those we feel are more important--cut the best deal we can and then try to improve it over time?

Insisting that we get everything "our way" is not a practical basis for conducting foreign policy. The U.S. is no longer the country in the world that everyone has to have relationships with. America's influence in the world is more on the wane than the rise and we need to be conscious of that. Venezuala and China can mutually accomplish many of their objectives without the U.S. at all. Russia is taking actions to strengthen its diplomatic position with other countries that lack natural resources--and they are willing to sacrifice their relations with the U.S. to do so. So far, our strong diplomatic partner India has resisted military response to insults from it's bitter enemy, Pakistan. How should we deal with both to accomplish our national objectives for that region? If we can get North Korea or Iran to agree with nuclear non-proliferation, should we refuse to conduct diplomacy with them because neither will agree to a democratic form of government or the practice of a rule of law? Should we completely reject initiating foreign relations with oil-rich Venezuela because it is run by a dictator? Should we reject relations with China because of their human rights policies? If we could assure that terrorist training bases were closed and achieve peace in the Pakistan-Afghanistan-India region by conducting diplomacy with the Taliban (which really is the "government" in western Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan moreso than either Islamabad or Kabul) because of their egregious policies relative on women's rights and religious freedom, should we reject such a relationship? Or should we establish an important diplomatic toehold with such partners and try to build from there?

Think about the history. Did the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria (all diplomatic "friends" at the time) hesitate to block the sale of oil to the U.S. when we agreed to support Israel during the Yom Kippur War? Remember the long lines at gas stations that resulted from the boycott by our "good trading partners"? They used what they knew the U.S. needed most to influence our foreign policy. They may do it again. Should we hesitate to act similarly?

No, I think a country--any country--has to identify those factors which are most important to them and their people and conduct foreign relations based primarily on the achievement of those objectives. That's not to say that a country shouldn't continue to encourage its diplomatic partners to change their ways on certain issues on which we can't reach an initial agreement. We could continue to incourage Hugo Chavez to consider movement towards democracy, but at the same time agree that we can be mutually agreeable oil trading partners. We could continue to trade with China and encourage them to consider higher standards on human rights and environmental issues. Should we establish relations with Iran if they would agree to nuclear non-proliferation and then use other diplomatic or economic "tools" to influence their acceptance of many of our cultural standards? If we could achieve true peace in the Middle East, would we be willing to distance ourselves somewhat from Israel?

We're the largest economy, lead the world in many areas of technology, we're the richest and the largest importer of goods in the world. We also have by far the strongest military. And we are the most generous people on the planet. We need to use those things to influence other countries in their relations with us. No country has any real "friends" in foreign policy. Every country has diplomatic or economic partners who are more or less allied in their mutual objectives. But in the end, everyone knows that each country must finally act only in its own best interests and those of its people.

Think of our national policy regarding Cuba. Let's be realistic, our refusal to have relations with Cuba is based almost entirely on domestic political posturing and an extremely strong Cuban-American lobby. Our politicians are far more interested in winning the Cuban-American vote and getting their generous contributions than they are in the well-being of the Cuban people. But what could we do to most quickly influence Cuba to leave the economic 19th century, to provide better living conditions for its residents, to quickly undermine the influence of the Castro regime, to give the U.S. access to Cuba's tremendous natural resources? Simply open our borders to them and permit free and open trading. Most regional experts who don't have an ax to grind over the "Castro history" agree that within a very short time U.S. relations with Cuba would very much resemble our relationship with Puerto Rico. Most Cubans have family both in the U.S. as well as in Cuba. They call back and forth using cell phones. Cubans can't hear Radio Free Cuba because it's electronically jammed. But they listen to Miami radio stations. The last thing the Castro government wants is for Cubans to have access to U.S. dollars and see firsthand the U.S. lifestyle. They know that once there is a flow of foreign trade and travel, their ability to restrict or convince their residents that America is the evil empire would be numbered in months if not the phases of the moon.

What I'm saying is that our government must thoroughly think through what our national foreign policy objectives are and prioritize them. The lists might be substantially different from country to country. The realistic mutually achievable objectives might be substantially different from one country to another. Our objectives for some countries might be broad and for others very narrow, some very strategic and others very practical. Take Bolivia, as an example. Bolivia is a socialistic country that has 50% of the world's supply of lithium, used in all modern batteries. The U.S. has 3% of the world's supply, but uses about 75% of the lithium-ion batteries produced in the world. That's an example of of country where we have a very narrow foreign relations objective. We've done nothing to establish relations with Bolivia. But Japan and China are investing heavily in the Bolivian economy and have contracted to buy huge amounts of their lithium. We must establish and conduct our foreign policy with the interest of Americans first and foremost. We are no longer the moral authority of the rest of the world--maybe we never were. We are also no longer a self-sufficent economy. If in such a situation we can accomplish our objectives while simultaneously encouraging our diplomatic partners to adopt some of our cultural values in the process, so much the better. But that can't be the primary condition on which we conduct our foreign policy.

Comments?

Ron Paul's book REVOLUTION has an entire chapter that addresses this.... too much to write. Suggest everyone reads this book.

Here's a few of my thoughts.

Strength through power, never negotiate with terrorists or dictators EVER!. If you support or even leave a hint of support for terrorist agendas you don't get a dime of foreign aid. If you want our money then you support the USA 100%. Become energy independent. Drill here drill now. We have it, let's get it. Support Israel 100%, no land for peace deals. Dismantle the United Nations.

Remember the famous meeting between Gorbachauf and Reagan when Reagan walked out of the meeting and whispered "Net" in his ear as he left the room. In Russian that means NO. Maybe that's a word we need to relearn. NO

Some countries may not like us and I don't give a rats hoot. China, Iran and the others only understand one thing, strength and resolve. You can negociate with them until the cows come home. Agreements and treaties mean nothing to them and they will break them in a heartbeat at their convenience. You want our dollars then it's our way or the highway.

Freedom is not a value, it's a God given right to all humans... except terrorists. In that case we need an army of Jack Bauer's to deal with that scum. No Habeas Corpus no Geneva Convention, just Jack alone with them in a room.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Here's a few of my thoughts.

Strength through power, never negotiate with terrorists or dictators EVER!. If you support or even leave a hint of support for terrorist agendas you don't get a dime of foreign aid. If you want our money then you support the USA 100%. Become energy independent. Drill here drill now. We have it, let's get it. Support Israel 100%, no land for peace deals. Dismantle the United Nations.

Remember the famous meeting between Gorbachauf and Regan when Reagan walked out of the meeting and whispered "Net" in his ear as he left the room. In Russian that means NO. Maybe that's a word we need to relearn. NO

Some countries may not like us and I don't give a rats hoot. China, Iran and the others only understand one thing, strength and resolve. You can negociate with them until the cows come home. Agreements and treaties mean nothing to them and they will break them in a heartbeat at their convenience. You want our dollars then it's our way or the highway.

Freedom is not a value, it's a God given right to all humans... except terrorists. In that case we need an army of Jack Bauer's to deal with that scum. No Habeas Corpus no Geneva Convention, just Jack alone with them in a room.

Right on brother!

Originally Posted by Fourpar

Right on brother!

Speak softly, and carry a big stick...and don't be afraid to swing it!

As a nation, the US has been safe and successful with a policy of open disdain toward Fascism, Socialism, Communism and a host of other "ism's" followed elsewhere; while privately being willing to discuss matters of mutual interest and separate concerns - but never willing to "turn the other cheek" or accept bully threats from anyone - no matter how large or small.

The danger today is an administration where the bulwark of the leadership has never had to smell the cordite or dealt firsthand with those who place little worth on the lives of its citizenry/subjects. What compounds the danger is if the administration - with an semi-socialist agenda - sees existing socialist regimes as something of minor envy and honorable in negotiations.

Foreign policy - at this time in America's history and economic state - needs to be exceptionally protectionist and not willing to subsidize the world at domestic expense.

Countries which have built their economies based on continuous US-paid financial aid need to be weaned from this dependency.

Confederations - such as the European Union - need to be recognized as economic competition while simultaneously being militarily dependent on US support, and that dependency needs to be leveraged for economic concessions.

Nations such as China, Russia, Venezuela, several African states and left-leaning Asian and European nations need to be recognized as the future opponents to American sovereignty. Arrogance that the US will live forever is more dangerous than these future opponents, especially when they don't have any compunction to ally temporarily to acquire the US - the same way so many other nations have been acquired in the past. We are only invincible when we don't let ourselves become vulnerable

SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA - The U.S.' long-term future is best served by paying more attention to this hemisphere and less to Europe and Asia. We have natural land bridge to the south, they have the resources and the population to provide them, and the demographics of the US are shifting from European-based to this-hemisphere-based. It's to everyone's advantage to be hemisphere-selective.

OK, DK and FourPar, which of the following countries would you refuse to even talk to if it was your choice? Each has something, can change something or is strategically important to the U.S.. Yet each of them seems to violate the standards which you set down for a country to even qualify for us to consider conducting diplomacy with....

China
Saudi Arabia
Russia
North Korea
Iran
Kuwait
Pakistan
Palestine
Cambodia
Algeria
Venezuela
Bolivia
Indonesia
Syria
Egypt
Lebanon
Vietnam
Thailand
Nigeria
Columbia
Mexico
Libya
Turkey
Kazakstan
Uzbekistan
Kyrgystan

And by the way, as far as breaking treaties is concerned, here's a list of treaties that were negotiated, many by the UN with U.S. approval as a member of the Security Council, and then either signed and broken or not ratified by the U.S. Maybe we're not as squeaky clean as diplomatic partners as we think we are. It's altogether possible that the rest of the world has the same suspiscions about our reliability as a diplomatic partner as you descibe other major countries..."Agreements and treaties mean nothing to them and they will break them in a heartbeat at their convenience." Here's the list of treaties negotiated just since 2000 which the U.S has either broken or refuses to ratify...

1. Ottawa Treaty (the land-mine ban)
2. Treaty on the Rights of the Child (only holdouts are the U.S. and Somalia)
3. Protocol to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (vote was 178-1, the US the only holdout)
4. United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
5. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
6. Convention on Biological Diversity
7. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
8. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
9. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
10. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
11. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
12. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes Against Humanity
13. Forced Labor Convention
14. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention
15. Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention
16. Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age to Marriage and Registration of Marriages
17. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
18. Convention on the International Right of Correction
19. International Criminal Court
20. Kyoto Accords (greenhouse gas reductions)
21. UN Convention on Biological Diversity (regulating genetic engineering)
22. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
23. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty [prohibiting programs like "Stars Wars"]
24. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
25. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
26. International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
27. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
28. Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment
29. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
30. Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers (prohibiting sale of arms to human rights violators & aggressors)
31. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
32. Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, and Other Related Materials
33. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (bans toxic waste dumping, etc.)
34. UN Moon Treaty [declaring the moon part of the Common Heritage of Mankind]
35. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
36. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
37. Protocol to enforce the Convention Against Torture
38. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime

Obviously thoughtful. You recommend a foreign policy with many more similarities to what I recommended than differences.

Picking just one of your recommendations that maybe justifies more thought, it might be "...at this time in America's history and economic state - needs to be exceptionally protectionist and not willing to subsidize the world at domestic expense."

I sure agree that we shouldn't be subsidizing the world at domestic expense. But the is a real danger in assuming a posture of economic protectionism. Our economy depends on the rest of the world to either supply us with materials, buy the products we produce, or--not an insignificant issue--buy our debt which we use to finance our government. Strict protectionism by the U.S. would certainly result in a corresponding response by our trading partners and buyers of our debt, which would be very much to our detriment.

A very simplistic example would be if the U.S. were to cancel our participation in the NAFTA agreement because of its effect on American jobs. Obviously, Canada and Mexico would be very upset at the deleterious effect on their economies. In that Canada is our largest supplier of oil and Mexico third (Saudi Arabia is second), it wouldn't take a huge leap to expect that Canada and Mexico might use our dependence on their oil to craft a response to our action that we might not like. China will buy all the oil that Canada and Mexico will send them. That would materially increase our reliance on getting more oil from the Middle East or from Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, our fourth largest supplier, as well as Nigeria and Angola (fifth and sixth largest suppliers), neither of which have particularly stable governments.

Other than me not embracing economic protectionisn, you and I agree on a lot more things regarding foreign policy than we disagree on. Further, I don't disagree that certain countries are "on the rise" and would have no compunction to take advantage of our vulnerability...and we are currently very vulnerable with weakened miltary capability, an economy on life support, and a fragile and unproven new political administration. It's pretty clear that countries like China, India and Russia are taking advantage of our situation with every opportunity.

The new administration will have to think through how a revamped foreign policy can best serve the U.S. very quickly. And the administration will have to exhibit a steely resolve to ignore the narrow interests who disagree with modified policies. While the Chinese seem to be greeting our greater commitment to diplomacy with them quite enthusiastically, U.S. human rights activists are enraged that Secretary of State Clinton announced that "human rights issues are not on the table". She went on to say that we know we will not reach agreement on those issues, so we want to expand our discussions to issues where the two countries can reach mutually positive agreements. As I suggested in my original post, what's best for the U.S. and our citizens on a broad front should be most important in crafting our foreign policy.

First off I can't comment on every single one but a a lot of them I suspect are total BS much like the Kyoto Accords (greenhouse gas reductions). Total 100% Bull. I'm talking about National Security issues not United Nation pet projects.

"UN Moon Treaty declaring the moon part of the Common Heritage of Mankind?"

Oh please.

And again I don't really give a rats behind which were broken and which really have any meaning at all. If it's not in OUR best interest they can go blow.

This would be a good start. That's after we start pumping our own oil and right after we tell OPEC to kiss our you know what. Wanna see how fast all the sheikhs driving around in their Bentleys start jumping on the anti terrorism band wagon then?

Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Iran
Palestine --- btw, there is no such place.
Venezuela
Syria
Egypt
Lebanon

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Obviously thoughtful. You recommend a foreign policy with many more similarities to what I recommended than differences.

Picking just one of your recommendations that maybe justifies more thought, it might be "...at this time in America's history and economic state - needs to be exceptionally protectionist and not willing to subsidize the world at domestic expense."

I sure agree that we shouldn't be subsidizing the world at domestic expense. But the is a real danger in assuming a posture of economic protectionism. Our economy depends on the rest of the world to either supply us with materials, buy the products we produce, or--not an insignificant issue--buy our debt which we use to finance our government. Strict protectionism by the U.S. would certainly result in a corresponding response by our trading partners and buyers of our debt, which would be very much to our detriment.

A very simplistic example would be if the U.S. were to cancel our participation in the NAFTA agreement because of its effect on American jobs. Obviously, Canada and Mexico would be very upset at the deleterious effect on their economies. In that Canada is our largest supplier of oil and Mexico third (Saudi Arabia is second), it wouldn't take a huge leap to expect that Canada and Mexico might use our dependence on their oil to craft a response to our action that we might not like. China will buy all the oil that Canada and Mexico will send them. That would materially increase our reliance on getting more oil from the Middle East or from Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, our fourth largest supplier, as well as Nigeria and Angola (fifth and sixth largest suppliers), neither of which have particularly stable governments.

Other than me not embracing economic protectionisn, you and I agree on a lot more things regarding foreign policy than we disagree on. Further, I don't disagree that certain countries are "on the rise" and would have no compunction to take advantage of our vulnerability...and we are currently very vulnerable with weakened miltary capability, an economy on life support, and a fragile and unproven new political administration. It's pretty clear that countries like China, India and Russia are taking advantage of our situation with every opportunity.

The new administration will have to think through how a revamped foreign policy can best serve the U.S. very quickly. And the administration will have to exhibit a steely resolve to ignore the narrow interests who disagree with modified policies. While the Chinese seem to be greeting our greater commitment to diplomacy with them quite enthusiastically, U.S. human rights activists are enraged that Secretary of State Clinton announced that "human rights issues are not on the table". She went on to say that we know we will not reach agreement on those issues, so we want to expand our discussions to issues where the two countries can reach mutually positive agreements. As I suggested in my original post, what's best for the U.S. and our citizens on a broad front should be most important in crafting our foreign policy.

We have had a tendency to award "most favored nation" trading status to nations with abysmal human rights records which are directly related to that nation's ability to produce goods at what would be loss-leader (a.k.a. "dumping") conditions if done by a US firm. That concession negatively affects US goodsmakers who deserve a measure of "protectionism" by US foreign policy writers. As an example, China and Vietnam are two countries which operate on state-subsidy and darned-close-to-slave-labor - yet the number of US manufacturing jobs which have "gone east" due the competitive disadvantage versus China are staggering. To me, "protectionism" equates to a level business field where true competition exists.

It's not a surprise that the countries with abominable human rights records can produce goods at dirt-cheap prices and flood markets - and when we buy those goods, we subsidize the same human rights violations we abhor. Quite an irony!

I'm a fan of NAFTA. If followed to its original intentions, a significant quantum of those manufacturing goods from China should be coming from Mexico, and that would have alleviated a tremendous number of the illegal Mexican aliens who have come to the US for work. The concept is still a good one.

VK - do you ever get out of the house? Your posts are epic. Just curious because I keep hearing about all of the activities there at TV by people who constantly post but I wonder when they get off the computer to enjoy them.

I don't even type fast--two finger hunt-and-peck.

But yeah, today I went out and got the car washed, went to a club meeting for a couple of hours mid-day, stopped by Barnes & Noble to shop for a book, did some food shopping for my under-the-weather wife, and got home in time for the evening news and the puck drop of the Michigan-Ohio State hockey game.

Plenty of time. C'mon down.