07-23-2018, 02:43 PM
Helsinki is behind us, and has apparently strengthened Trump support among Republicans.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5983063/Trump-hits-new-high-approval-poll-Republicans-highest-presidential-marks-2001.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490.
So, without forgetting the past, let us nevertheless turn our eyes to the future on this thread. Most Political Scientists would agree that at least three conditions must be met in order for the US to wield effective foreign policy and achieve international goals:
1. The Executive and the Legislative branch much work together to set and achieve foreign policy goals, agree on who our friends and enemies are, present a unified face to adversaries.
2. The US must maintain a system of alliances, especially NATO. (I add, that such alliances, including mutual defense treaties with Japan and South Korea, double US diplomatic clout. Russian, China and Iran have NOTHING like this going for them.)
3. And it must provide the rest of the world with clear guidance on when, where and why the US and allies will apply diplomatic, economic and/or military force.
I don't say these are the only conditions, but I believe there is broad agreement that if any of these three fail, the result is incoherence and actual as well as perceived weakness. Disaster if all three fail, though that might not be apparent immediately. These conditions also provide a kind of key for decoding foreign policy goals of US adversaries, who are served by confusion and division in 1-3.
Keeping the "benchmarks" above in mind as measures of likely effectiveness, I'd like to know what forum members think of three foreign policy issues in the news this week. (Not implying you have to address each and every one.)
1) NK is not fulfilling Trump administration goals for disarmament, as China and Russia affirm they have Kim's back. https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-snubs-trump-about-returning-korean-war-dead-2018-7.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/lindsey-graham-warns-trump-is-being-played-by-north-korea/
2) Trump has invited Putin to Washington later this year for another summit.
https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/19/trump-invites-putin-washington-fall/
3) In his morning Tweet storm, The leader of the free world threatened Iran thus: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/donald-trump-russia-iran/index.html
Keeping the three "benchmarks" above in mind as measures of likely effectiveness, I am curious as to whether forum members 1) agree with importance I am placing on these benchmarks. (If not, it would be interesting to hear why not.) And/or 2) how forum members see the the three above-mentioned issues unfolding in light of these traditional requirements of foreign policy. Do all or some of the conditions obtain now? Can foreign policy goals now be pursued effectively without some or all of these in place? Pick an example and let's discuss.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5983063/Trump-hits-new-high-approval-poll-Republicans-highest-presidential-marks-2001.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490.
So, without forgetting the past, let us nevertheless turn our eyes to the future on this thread. Most Political Scientists would agree that at least three conditions must be met in order for the US to wield effective foreign policy and achieve international goals:
1. The Executive and the Legislative branch much work together to set and achieve foreign policy goals, agree on who our friends and enemies are, present a unified face to adversaries.
2. The US must maintain a system of alliances, especially NATO. (I add, that such alliances, including mutual defense treaties with Japan and South Korea, double US diplomatic clout. Russian, China and Iran have NOTHING like this going for them.)
3. And it must provide the rest of the world with clear guidance on when, where and why the US and allies will apply diplomatic, economic and/or military force.
I don't say these are the only conditions, but I believe there is broad agreement that if any of these three fail, the result is incoherence and actual as well as perceived weakness. Disaster if all three fail, though that might not be apparent immediately. These conditions also provide a kind of key for decoding foreign policy goals of US adversaries, who are served by confusion and division in 1-3.
Keeping the "benchmarks" above in mind as measures of likely effectiveness, I'd like to know what forum members think of three foreign policy issues in the news this week. (Not implying you have to address each and every one.)
1) NK is not fulfilling Trump administration goals for disarmament, as China and Russia affirm they have Kim's back. https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-snubs-trump-about-returning-korean-war-dead-2018-7.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/lindsey-graham-warns-trump-is-being-played-by-north-korea/
2) Trump has invited Putin to Washington later this year for another summit.
https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/19/trump-invites-putin-washington-fall/
3) In his morning Tweet storm, The leader of the free world threatened Iran thus: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/donald-trump-russia-iran/index.html
Keeping the three "benchmarks" above in mind as measures of likely effectiveness, I am curious as to whether forum members 1) agree with importance I am placing on these benchmarks. (If not, it would be interesting to hear why not.) And/or 2) how forum members see the the three above-mentioned issues unfolding in light of these traditional requirements of foreign policy. Do all or some of the conditions obtain now? Can foreign policy goals now be pursued effectively without some or all of these in place? Pick an example and let's discuss.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
