American Foreign Policy: You’re Either With Us or Against Us!

Unsurprisingly, there was mass controversy surrounding statements by double President Donald J. Trump last month.  While this is the norm, specifically the post will be addressing statements he made to reduce military exercises with South Korea.  Much of the world was shocked by his decision since historically South Korea has been a vital ally against long time U.S. enemies North Korea and China.

Now, many were shocked at the President’s announcement, especially since it seemed to be in part related to a former bromance between Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.  However, Trump is a master of misdirecting public conversation so the immediate conversation ignored the most important part of the cancellation.  Specifically, his decision to cancel the military exercises over South Korea’s decision to not support the U.S. in its current war with Iran.  As such, the U.S. is reconsidering many foreign relationships as it is now asking how truly loyal the rest of the world is to its objectives.

South Korea is hardly the only country to face repercussions over perceived lack of loyalty.  Arguments over Iran led to the President reducing troops in Germany and Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly questioning the purpose of NATO.  Then, of course, there was the fighting between the Vatican and Washington.  In short, there seems to be a belief that if you question the U.S., the country will start to reduce its support for yours.

Military correspondent for Newsmax Ryan McBeth noted that the United States is increasingly cancelling its relationship with countries that won’t support its objectives.  Keeping in mind that Trump got elected on a promise to reduce foreign entanglements and focus on American issues at home, this is seen more as a surprise to his non-interventionist supporters.  However, it seems that America First is being less of a call against foreign intervention and more a demand to other countries over who they need to please.

So this is reprioritizing other country’s military objectives away from their own citizens and more towards ours.  Keeping in mind that support from the United States makes up a large portion of the European defense budget and we are protecting their ability to trade, most of those countries can’t exactly walk away from us.  If that doesn’t come as increased spending for NATO, that may instead mean support in other ways such as required sanctions on military enemies.  Keeping in mind that Europe wanted increased trade with Iran, their interests may not be represented by the U.S. at this time.

That begs the question then as to what this will lead to going forward.  After all, there are moral concerns about US foreign policy, economic concerns as well, and concerns about feasibility.  How might the rest of the world handle such decisions or how should it act?

Well, the purpose of this blogpost isn’t to make moral judgments or recommendations.  Merely to make an awareness of what seems to be the thinking or direction current events are going.  Instead, we’ll be discussing the possible consequences that could come from this direction on and for foreign policy.

Now, the priority of every country needs to be the well-being of its people.  Every country has to consider whether a relationship with the United States is worth it.  So what that determination is could likely lead to one of three foreign policy outcomes.

First, countries get increasingly independent or form new alliances.  Many countries, like Saudi Arabia or South Korea, have the capability to pursue developing the nuclear bomb, and if they can’t trust the U.S. to provide proper deterrence against their historic enemies, they may be provoked into increasing the number of countries in the world with nuclear bombs.  In addition, the U.S. 's frenemies Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to counter their rivals (and two U.S. frenemies) Israel, India, and (US enemy) Iran.  This alone shows that other countries are capable of forming alliances that exist outside of the European or Chinese spheres of influence and thus could make new counter balances to existing power.

Then again, other countries may have an interest in simply replacing their dependence on the U.S. with dependency on China.  Europe has been pursuing new, better relationships with China as Britain pursued building a better embassy in London or returning the Chagos Islands to China’s ally Mauritius while France has pursued greater trade with China and sought their support to end the war in Ukraine.  In addition, Canada, the U.S.’s neighbor to the north, had pursued a greater oil trade deal with China.  So, instead of developing new alliances or replace the US with their own militaries, these countries may just want a new creditor to continue their dependency.

Of course, the U.S. likely wouldn’t let that happen peacefully.  After all, the country has seen China as a threat, if not outright enemy, for at least the last decade and a half so it’s no surprise that it wouldn’t want its allies making allies with the dragon empire.  Just ask Alberta, home to most of Canada’s oil, which is allegedly receiving US support in its bid for independence at a time when Canada is both pursuing better relations with China AND a trade war with the U.S., its biggest trading partner.  Likely, the U.S. has other plans for other nations as well so it’s worth asking if pursuing such a new alliance is worth it.

Finally, there’s the possibility that other countries just accept the U.S.’s new foreign policy and decide that it’s better to stay in its good graces.  After all, the U.S. still has the world’s largest GDP and most advanced military so there are reasons to stay friends with it.  Across Latin America the U.S. is supporting anti-crime initiatives (with or without that country’s support) so there is a benefit to receiving U.S. aid.  Meanwhile, the overthrow of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela told that country what can happen if you cross President Trump, so unsurprisingly the new President is all too happy to work with the Secretary of State.  So there are still people that want to do business with us.

Whatever happens, this is America’s foreign policy until 2029 and (I personally find it) doubtful that it’s going to change anytime soon.  We’ll see what the future holds, but this is what other countries will have to accept if they want a relationship with the world’s only superpower.  Either way, only the reactions of those countries will determine if that direction is here to stay.

Unwanted Thoughts on Protesting the Flag

            I’m going to start off by saying I really do not care about this topic as there are far more important things going on in the universe.  For example, the US debt just hit $20 trillion, Angela Merkel just got a fourth term as German chancellor, classes are busy as ever, and I’ve started writing again.  However, my news feed is being barraged with people arguing or giving their thoughts on the recent player protests where some aren’t standing for the national anthem and I find myself both annoyed by it and having trouble not responding to it because I feel a need to always give my thoughts on everything (which is a problem).  So instead of responding to it, I’m just going to make a post here with my thoughts and then get on with it.  To sum up: it is usually a bad idea to protest the flag or the national anthem or any other symbol of patriotism because it loses the people who care about it without winning anyone over.

            From my experience, there are two types of people on the flag issue: those who don’t care either way and those who don’t want the flag protested. I haven’t seen anyone out there who is openly saying “YEAH, DOWN WITH THE FLAG!!!  LET’S FLIP IT THE BIRD EVERYTIME WE WALK BY IT!!!” so that group doesn’t really seem to exist.  In general, those who do protest it by kneeling during the national anthem, burn it, or otherwise, usually do so as a method of voicing their frustration towards other issues in American society.  This is significantly different from the debate over the Confederate moments as proponents actually debate the merit of those monuments whereas here it is about what the image represents.  The problem is that this is largely lost on supporters of the flag as they view it as an attack on what the flag represents: the country, the constitution, etc.

            Throughout history, there have been protests against the flag (such as during the Viet Nam War, the Iraq War, etc.) where it has been burned, defamed, or otherwise in opposition to US policy.  There has been much debate over this and the Supreme Court has held that this is protected by the first amendment, but usually the protesting of the flag has sparked pure backlash.  Objectively, there is a segment of the country that does take it as a symbol of what America stands for (or should stand for) so going after it is deemed as an attack on the country more than anything else.  Though these statements are probably unfair, based on the aforementioned logic it should come as no surprise that those who do protest symbols like the flag are accused of “hating America.”  Inevitably, the message is lost and the action comes across as an insult.

            Since the act comes across as an insult, the average protester will lose the person they make angry.  As was noted by Dale Carnegie in the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” no one likes to be belittled or insulted so you are inevitably going to have people not take you seriously with that reaction.  Since there is a vocal group that does take the flag so seriously, this method becomes ineffective since it guarantees people won’t care what you have to say no matter how important you think it is and thus you’ve already lost them.  Also, as previously mentioned, the only other side is a group that doesn’t care about the protests period so you’re not really winning anyone over to replace the people you are losing.

            Taking a look at the issue the NFL players claim to be protesting in favor of, criminal justice cannot happen without conservative and liberal support.  Louisiana managed to pass ten laws on criminal justice reform despite having a Democratic governor and Republican legislature and in Illinois a bill aimed at helping previous offenders get a business license (which would reduce recidivism rates) was introduced by a Democrat and signed into law by a Republican governor.  As is the case with many issues, people need to come together to focus on the importance of the topic to get support.  However, the only things these protests seem to be doing is making criminal justice reform look bad and driving away a group of people.  Whether people are right or wrong to be upset, the blowback is going to turn people off to the issue.

            There are going to be responses to the argument I’m making.  Two I’ve already heard include “it’s not about the method, it’s about the ideas behind it,” and “everyone must do their part to protest so these celebrities should use their time to draw attention to more important topics.”  Well first, yes, it is about the method and that’s probably the most important part of advocacy.  I’ve worked in many campaigns so I know for a fact that if I had walked up to a potential voter and said “I don’t give a crap about your issues, vote for my guy,” I’d probably lose my candidate a vote.  To truly win people over, you have to reach out to them where they are.

            Going back to Carnegie and based on my own experiences, you are more likely to win people over or influence them by getting on their level.  Understanding where they’re coming from, making them feel like they’re important, addressing their concerns, and relating important issues to them is far more likely to win them over than anything else.  It also creates empathy as you begin to understand them more and why they feel that way.  It can help build connections despite differences.  In a country that believes itself to be horribly divided, this is would be very beneficial.

            As for the celebrity argument, movie stars, celebrities, etc. are usually really bad advocates for much of anything.  The average football player is going to be worth millions of dollars more than the average person.  Colin Kaepernick is estimated to have a net worth of about $22 million so he’s not really someone the average person will identify with.  Considering the fact that the average victim of police violence or problems with the criminal justice system is going to be dirt poor, he’s a bad representative of the people who are actually impacted.  As a result, people probably aren’t going to take his thoughts or the thoughts of other players all that seriously.

            In the grand scheme of things, most people don’t like being talked down to where they are.  The reason people don’t like it when famous people talk politics is because most of these people don’t experience the same problems the common man does to the same level.  Many people have to worry about providing for themselves, their kids, finding a job, etc. and that’s not a problem Hollywood or even Washington regularly experiences.  So when more prominent individuals like actors or politicians or singers try to tell people how to think, it comes across as elitist.  Considering the fact that none of the NFL players are really giving up anything besides having to be in a possibly uncomfortable position for a few minutes, they’re not sacrificing anything of note and probably won’t be taken seriously.

            If you truly want to win someone over, be their friend.  Just do what was said in a previous paragraph: get to know them, understand their perspective, empathize with them, and help them to see things for themselves.  People will always take people they know more seriously than some pundit on TV.  Case in point, there was a black man by the name of Daryl Davis who managed to get 200 people to leave the KKK by befriending them.  Building social capital can improve relations and bring people together.  That’s the only way to improve things.

            So as I said, the issue of the flag protesting isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.  Also, I do understand the importance of criminal justice reform as I have written about it quite a bit.  However, I find the issue to be overly divisive which would probably drive people away and make them less likely to take it seriously.  Constantly virtue signaling and going on about how important supposed values are without actually putting support behind it and reaching out to people where they are won’t go anywhere.  So if society truly does want to make things better, it has to promote empathy and understanding.