Problems With Primacy: American Foreign Policy Today

A few weeks ago, Pope Benedikt XVI stated that condom usage is consistent with catholic morals in some cases, such as preventing the spread of HIV for male prostitutes. Many have been uplifting this as a radical change, while it is arguably consistent with former declarations on catholicism and contraception from the vatican. The vatican has been harshly criticized for its policy on condoms in light of the AIDs epidemic. Benedikt XVI came under great fire when he stated that condoms only worsen the fight against AIDS.

Benedikt XVI does not propose condoms as a moral solution, but as a means of preventing the spread of HIV. It is important to note that male prostitute’s customers are predominatly male. In this instance in which the Pope condoned condom usage, conception is not possible. During the interview in which the Pope made this declaration, he emphasized chastity as the way to fight the spread of HIV and AIDs. However, he does not support the use of condoms between married couples when one partner is infected with HIV and another is not.

I remain, frankly, bewildered by the Pope’s declaration, his exclusion of women and the implications this has. I know that the catholic church does not support artificial forms of birth control, because they believe it alters the will of God, but I do not like the consequences this has for female sexuality. For years, feminists have been emphasizing female sexual empowerment and gratification as a means of ending violence against women and including women as full members of society. How is this possible if women cannot control when they have children? More importantly, the Pope denies women the ability to use condoms when it means that they will not become infected or infect others with HIV. To me, this means he values a woman’s role as pro creator over her health or the health of her partner.

It is my firm belief that in order for women to fully engage in society they must have control over their reproductive capabilities and their right to make their own decisions about their sexuality must be acknowledged as a an aspect of granting the ability to fully engage with the world. To me, it seems only logical that planning children is not only beneficial for women- it is beneficial for their children. Especially now that the AIDs epidemic in Africa has a female face, the distribution of condoms could have a great impact on women, their health and their ability to care for their children and their families.

Pope Benedikt stated that the view he articulated, which advocates reducing the spread of HIV by using condoms when conception is not possible, “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality”. I hope that the he will extend this “more human way of living sexuality” to include women, acknowledging the importance of women’s health and humanity.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-20-pope-condoms_N.htm

After reading an unsettling article posted on Chinadaily.com, I went to regard other sources as to the accuracy of the statements made, which in turn led to discover some other concerning issues. First I will delve into this “unsettling article.” The article, “Obama uses gunboat diplomacy on North Korea and China,” is about our Presidents’s decision to send a “naval surge” into the Yellow Sea as a response to North Korea’s missile attack that killed four South Koreans on Tuesday. The article asserts that Obama’s decision was meant to send a message to both North Korea and China, since China views the area in which US naval ships entered as Chinese territory. The article then goes on to list a number of risks this move has for the US. These include a second Korean War and the financial retribution the US would incur if the Chinese Government decides to act out against the Obama Administration’s decision.  The article discusses the United States’ decline in power relative to China by explaining that “Obama’s big stick move against China” was used because the US no longer holds the diplomatic and soft power clout it once enjoyed to influence the decision of other actors.  The author says proof of this can be seen in Obama’s reluctance to take concrete action against China’s currency manipulation policies which hurt the US economy.  What I found unsettling in this article was not the information provided ( the author’s arguments clearly hold some flaws which leads me to believe that the future of the US is much less dire than is painted in the article), but the mood of the piece and the inferences he makes.  There is clearly a lot of anti-American sentiment; the author seems to look forward to the day when the Chinese military will be able to “knock out American ships” and glorifies “the fact that US is losing its ability to wage “dollar diplomacy”.”

When I attempted to research additional information to uncover the situation between the US, China and North Korea in the Yellow Sea, it took me a while to find anything regarding a US led naval surge. I finally came across an article that said this information was cut from American news media and that the Government actually censored footage of the story.  I tested the validity of this statement, and sure enough,  Youtube videos on the subject came up saying, “We are sorry, this content is not available in your country.”  I am so glad we have freedom of press here in America.

But enough about my shock over these discoveries.  How this situation will affect future relations between the US, North Korea and China is pivotal.  Another article I recently read on Chinadaily.com titled “US key to peace on Korean Penninsula” by Sun Ru highlights the importance of the United States in Six-Party Talks  to negotiate with North Korea to agree upon  less aggressive military tactics and foreign policies.  The article suggests that if the US engages in more open talks with North Korea they will feel less threatened by the US and neighboring countries, and more willing to “slow down its nuclear weapons program.” This is an interesting point, but North Korean leadership has acted irrationally in the past, so negotiation strategies that may have been effective in the past may end up empowering North Korea’s hostile behavior.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stresses cooperation between the US and China in handling this situation, which obviously is important if you believe the author of the former article’s opinion that US diplomacy has become weak.

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?gid=2&tid=685211&extra=&page=1

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/thinktank/2010-12/03/content_11646288.htm

http://www.groundreport.com/World/War-Line-in-the-Yellow-Sea/2931730

It is appearing that Congress will not be taken action on lifting restrictions on Cuba this session. There had been hope by many that a bill which would essentially lift all travel restrictions on Americans in regards to Cuba could be voted on during the current lame-duck session, but this now seems unlikely. Earlier in the year, President Obama had lift administrative restrictions in order to allow Cuban-Americans to visit and send money to their family members still in Cuba. The administration had hoped that with the Democratic control of Congress there could have been favorable action on additional legislation, but TheHill is reporting that the bill will not likely make it out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It also does not look hopeful for any action to be taken on this legislation in the upcoming Congress that will convene in January. A Republican majority in the House will make it very difficult to lift Cuban bans as the party has traditionally been a strong supporter of the restrictions. There is some though who believe that freshmen Republicans could be persuaded to approve of lifting the travel and trade bans on Cuba. By pressing the issue of a new market for American farmers to sell to the island nation just 90 miles to the south of Florida, it could be argued that new jobs could be generated and help in the chaotic times of the current world economy. Also TheHill is reporting that some feel the libertarian nature of the freshmen class of Republicans might lead to the group supporting measures which limit government intrusion on the private life, the application being to government restrictions on individual travel.

I think that the inability of Congress to make progress on this legislation is unfortunate for both Americans and the people of Cuba. When President Obama lifted administrative restrictions on Cuban-American travel to and from the country it looked as if America was leaning towards are more relaxed policy on our Caribbean neighbor. For the US, Congress’ inability to allow trade and travel with Cuba is a failing that will impact our country economically, as well as morally. With the harsh economic times we’ve been facing for the past several years we need any opportunities for our markets to expand, especially agriculture. An ability to trade with Cuba would generate more economic wealth for American business. The influx of money to and from Cuba would also benefit the Cuban people, who are currently struggle with a poor a repressive economy. Additional trade would increase their quality of life and possibly help reduce the power of Castro’s regime. This would be a win in America’s humanity efforts, and would be a moral victory as we continue to broaden the reach of our ideas and beliefs. I hope that those new Republicans with more libertarian and the Democrats who remain in the House can exert some influence to gain enough support and pass legislation that would eliminate America’s long and outdated policy on Cuban relations.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/131559-congress-wont-lift-cuba-travel-ban-this-year

In the article Joseph Nye argues that the United States power in the 21st century will not decline, but the nature of power will be more diffused, and the United States will have to practice both hard and soft power and work in coalition with other nations to solve global problems in the information age. He calls this “smart power.”

He argues that the United States will remain the strongest military power for a long time. Further, it has allies, such as Japan and India to counter the power of rising nations, such as China.

Because of globalization, some of its influence in culture will decline not absolutely, but relative to other countries. He argues that where the U.S. is lacking is the standard of the primary and secondary education, its debt, and its bipartisan politics. Nevertheless, these are not new issues and are fixable. On the issue of  debt, if the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to widen, it will affect the interest rate, which will hamper private investment. But the U.S. has two advantages: having the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and the most liquid asset market with its Treasury bonds.

On the other hand, the U.S. trumps other rising powers in the field of  having top universities, research and development, entrepreneurship, and scientific advancement. Furthermore, the high immigration is a plus factor and will help with its demographic decline in the near future. On the other hand, other countries, such as China with its one child policy, and even the European countries do not have the immigration rate as the U.S.   

Therefore, the U.S.will continue to be the world power with the smart strategy of applying both hard power and soft power resources, and that implies working with other alliances that have mutual interests.

The United States and Japan have teamed up and today conducted one of their largest military exercises.  The exercise involved over 44,000 troops and comes just after the North Korean/South Korean episode- a striking coincidence.  While government officials assert that the military training had been scheduled long before South and North Korean tensions came to a head, other countries in the region are not convinced.  China, for example, has staunchly opposed the US and Japan showing of force.  The Chinese spoke through their Foreign Ministry spokeswoman and expressed their concern that these types of exercises will cause even more chaos and unrest between the Koreas and the other Asian countries.

These “Keen Sword” drills are an annual phenomenon, but what makes them so newsworthy is the fact that South Korea has been involved in this years’ drills for the first time since 1986.  The United States has asserted that the “Keen Sword” drills are necessary to test and tweak American military strategies.  Bringing South Korea into the mix means that there is a concerted effort being made by the Japanese to reach out to their neighbor and improve their relations.  Japan has been noticeably alarmed and preoccupied by North Korea’s actions and is mainly trying to prepare for a trigger that might lead to all out war.

I think that the United States and Japan have made a dramatic statement to the North Koreans through their cooperation with South Korea.  While I am not surprised that the US and Japan have taken South Korea under their wing, I am slightly surprised that they were so transparent in their actions.  The entire scenario hold implications for world affairs and has the potential to draw the United States into yet another war, a war I’m not so sure we are militarily and strategically able to fight at this time.

Haiti’s government has promised to honor elections results from the election on November 28, 2010, according to nation’s ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador Leo Merores said at a UN meeting in New York that “We are moving forward in terms of a democratic transition of power.” Although the results will be announced as early as December 7th, the transition of power will not occur until February 7th. In order to make the election more democratic, 4.5 million people were eligible to vote, as well as 11 of 30 senators, and all 99 parliament deputies. However, the election was characterized by violence and fraud that ultimately resulted in 12 of the 18 presidential candidates calling to annul the vote. Moreover, it was stated that “Preval attempted to fraudulently tip the election to his ruling Unity Party.”

The U.S. should take notice to this election. After the devastating earthquake and outbreak of cholera in the country, it is important that the people are given the opportunity to elect who they want as president to represent them. If corruption occurs, I think that it would be in the United State’s best interest to step in because honestly, the country cannot afford any more disruption to the state’s well-being. On a happier note, though, if the election is truly democratic, then perhaps the country will experience a brighter future with better representation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-03/haiti-s-government-will-honor-election-results-un-envoy-says.html

Yesterday, FIFA President Sepp Bladder announced to a worldwide audience that Russia has been selected to host the 2018 World Cup, representing the first time the event will be held in Russia. Russia’s bid was chosen by the FIFA selection committee over bids from England, Spain/Portugal, and Japan/South Korea.  Russian leadership is ecstatic about the opportunity to host the world’s largest sporting event. Not only do they see it as a chance to expand popularity of the world’s most popular sport, but also as an opportunity to showcase its economic revitalization and reassert itself as a world superpower by ensuring flawless execution of the event.

The United States, which was denied the opportunity Thursday to host the 2022 World Cup, should utilize Russian necessity for a safe World Cup by escalating diplomatic pressure to get Russia to play a greater role in the global fight on terror. A terrorist attack at the World Cup, an event historically attended by over 3 million people, would dramatically shake international politics, and would overshadow Russia’s showcase of its revitalized economic power.  As such, the U.S. should draw on this fear to get Russia more involved in the fight against global terrorist networks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120202203.html

While the most receptive to nuclear power are, generally, Republicans, the gains form the November 2nd elections seems to indicate that it may not happen as quick as the U.S. needs it to as a source of alternative energy instead of a structure to provide for advanced weaponry. Sen. John McCain has stated that would like to see 45 more reactors by 2030, while Sen. Lamar Alexander called for 100 more. This appears to be in favor of nuclear production but Republicans are also against what regulates a lot of the nuclear industry: global warming rules and restrictions. Gaining a majority in the House and six seats in the Senate will probably cripple what progress has been made on cap – and – trade policy.

Even though various Republicans are supportive of seeing reactors built in the future there seems to be a misunderstanding about how they will come about. Despite having a growing government support for this initiative, the government does not build nuclear reactors, private companies do. Robert E. Curry Jr., a member of the New York State Public Service Commission, has been saying that these projects are likely to cost billions of dollars and would require loans in order to start operations towards building them now. “It’s almost unfinanceable in today’s environment,” he said. These worries are based on the recovering U.S. economy that does not seem to have the capabilities to start funding projects like these nuclear reactor requests.

These new changes towards nuclear energy expansion will alter the prospectives other nations are going to have on the U.S. Could this cause others to believe that the U.S. is still building its nuclear program in order to develop advanced weaponry or alternative energy? Would it matter? The fear could arise that this HUGE demand for nuclear reactors will suggest that the U.S. is attempting to move into a field where it has the highest level of technology acquisition possible, even if it is energy acquisition or nuclear-based weaponry development.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/business/energy-environment/17NUCLEAR.html?ref=businessspecial2

On December 1, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon laid out a four-point agenda for cooperation on security and development issues between the United Nations and the largest regional security organization in the world, covering over 56 states including the US, Europe, China, and Central Asia. In a summit in Astana, Kazakhstan he told leaders that “The United Nations stands with you as we seek to make this world a safer, more just and more prosperous place for all.”

The four central ideas to his agenda are securing peace, fundamental freedoms and human rights, sustainable development, and arms control (this includes disarmament and non-proliferation). Mr. Ban has asked that all countries re-double their efforts in all four of his central ideas. One of the main issues that Mr. Ban focused on was non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. He is calling for drastic action to be taken on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The United States is on the forefront of nuclear disarmament. The US has been requesting that numerous other countries sign and ratify the CTBT, though the US itself has not ratified the CTBT. Many critics argue that this delegitimizes any US calls for non-proliferation. Hopefully something in the coming years something will come of non-proliferation.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36919&Cr=kazakh&Cr1=

Tensions in the region have been extremely high after North Korea’s artillery barrage on Yeonpyeong Island left four South Korean’s dead. The attack occurred on November 23rd, just days after Pyongyang revealed the existence of a new uranium-enrichment facility to visiting American scientists. The United States has “strongly condemned” the DPRK’s act of violence and chose to proceed with its scheduled joint naval war games in the Yellow Sea, despite China’s criticism.

North Korea’s attack on South Korean soil is something that requires the response of the United States. Citizens of the ROK are understandably angered by their neighbors actions and many want retaliation. However the out break of war in the region would require U.S. military participation. The Obama Administration must strongly evaluate the events diplomatic handling to avoid another Korean War.