Essay PreviewMore ↓
The metaphors that foreign policy experts have used to define what foreign policy is rules out these important concerns. Those metaphors involve self-interest (e.g., the Rational Actor Model), stability (a physics metaphor), industrialization (unindustrialized nations are "underdeveloped"), and trade (freedom is free trade).
I would like to propose an alternative way of thinking about foreign policy under which all these issues would become a natural part of what foreign policy is about. The premise is that, when international relations work smoothly, it is because certain moral norms of the international community are being followed. This mostly goes unnoticed, since those norms are usually followed. We notice problems when those norms are breached. Given this, it makes sense that foreign policy should be centered around those norms.
The moral norms I suggest come out of what I called in Moral Politics "nurturant morality." It is a view of ethical behavior that centers on (a) empathy and (b) responsibility (for both yourself and others needing your help). Many things follow from these central principles: fairness, minimal violence (e.g., justice without vengeance), an ethic of care, protection of those needing it, a recognition of interdependence, cooperation for the common good, the building of community, mutual respect, and so on. When applied to foreign policy, nurturant moral norms would lead the American government to uphold the ABM treaty, sign the Kyoto accords, engage in a form of globalization governed by an ethics of care-and it would automatically make all the concerns listed above (e.g., the environment, women's rights) part of our foreign policy.
This, of course, implies (a) multilateralism, (b) interdependence, and (c) international cooperation. But these three principles, without nurturant norms, can equally well apply to the Bush administration's continuance of its foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy, as he announced in the election campaign, has been one of self-interest ("what's in the best interest of the United States")-if not outright hegemony (the Cheney/Rumsfeld position). The Democratic leaders incorrectly criticized Bush for being isolationist and unilateralist, on issues like the Kyoto accords and the ABM Treaty.
How to Cite this Page
"Change Foreign Policy to Win the War on Terrorism." 123HelpMe.com. 17 Feb 2020
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- In this essay I will argue that it is difficult for a foreign power to defeat an insurgency in the insurgent’s home territory. To begin, I will examine literature in the field of asymmetric warfare related to the differences and similarities between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Finally, I will look at how literature in the field can be applied to further our understanding of counterinsurgency efforts. What is an insurgency. The media does a poor job of differentiating between terrorism and guerrilla warfare.... [tags: Terrorism, Guerrilla Warfare]
2375 words (6.8 pages)
- In Dying To Win, Robert A. Pape challenges the views about why suicide terrorists do what they do and to whom. Pape is trying to convey that "suicide terrorism is rising around the world" (Pape pg. 6). Since many terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorist motivated by religious beliefs, it makes people think that Islamic fundamentalism is the central cause. The connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is incorrect, and encourage foreign countries to harm many Muslims people that are harmless.... [tags: Terrorism, September 11 attacks, Al-Qaeda]
1426 words (4.1 pages)
- Identifying the Enemy in a War Against Terrorism Abstract: In the good old days, it seemed like such an easy task to identify and give a face to who were your friends and foes at time of war, even at the risk of racial and cultural stereotyping. We are finding that it is very difficult to be at war with a concept like "international terrorism" because we also must give it a face. During World War II an article was published in the December 22, 1941 issue of Life magazine titled "A Handbook for Americans." A section of the handbook detailed ways that Americans could "tell a Jap from a Chinese." I found these stereotypes to be quite ridiculous – but the article underscores that there... [tags: September 11 Terrorism Essays]
1177 words (3.4 pages)
- Dangers of the War on Terrorism The President of the United State has used the phrases “War on Poverty”, “War on Drugs”, War on Illiteracy”, and the “War on Hunger,” when describing the problems Americans are facing. The term ‘war’ is used metaphorically to signify our willingness to devote vast resources, and immense amounts of time to a specified problem. No one seems to have a problem with these phrases as they do not signify our determination to die for the cause. The Civil War, World War II, and even the Vietnam War or Conflict designates our determination to give the lives of soldiers and spill the blood of the enemy to maintain our freedom.... [tags: President Bush's War on Terror]
2784 words (8 pages)
- The results of these five quizzes revealed some very expected and some surprising results. As I already knew, Bernie Sanders came out among the top choice for me in almost every single quiz, ranking eighty-five to one hundred percent on relation to my stance on the important topics. However, Hillary Clinton also scored fairly high among these issues in my quizzes, staying far above eighty percent agreeableness in relation to our views. This was a surprise to me because so far I have not felt that she stands up to what I believe sufficiently.... [tags: Global warming, Climate change, Climate, Weather]
737 words (2.1 pages)
- One of the most studied military strategist or theorist is Clausewitz. His work, “On War” has stood the test of time, used widely to analyze and study conflicts in the twenty-first century. “War is a continuation of `policy'—or of `politics'—by other means" (Bassford, pg 199), the most famous Clausewitz quote, often used to justify conflict but to the contrary, most often misapplied during conflict. “On War” is written as if war is an art, however, Clausewitz does offer guidance on tactics and military objectives, which by description, war is a science too.... [tags: communism, vietnam war]
1720 words (4.9 pages)
- Terrorism In the modern world, extreme Islamic terrorism has been a major threat to people and nations all over the world. It is a fact that the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by terrorists in Afghanistan. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the terrorist-friendly Taliban regime was toppled in late 2001 and has moved to the tribal regions in Pakistan, near Afghanistan. To prevent reappearance of terrorism in Afghanistan, it is necessary to stop the resurgence of the Taliban. Terrorism in Afghanistan can be stopped by reducing political corruption, shifting the economy away from narcotics, and convincing the general public of the necessity to end terrorism.... [tags: National Security]
740 words (2.1 pages)
- Review of Islam and Terrorism Dr. Mark A. Gabriel has written a compelling book on Islam and its ties to terrorism. He brings together the past and present, while making convincing arguments how the history of Islam is contributing to what we see now as modern terrorism. Dr. Gabriel was born into a devout Muslim family and raised in Egypt, by age twelve he had memorized the entire Holy Quran. He went on to earn his bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees in history and culture from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt.... [tags: Islam, Muhammad, Qur'an, Sharia]
992 words (2.8 pages)
- Why do people resort to such violent acts as bombing, assassinations, and hi-jacking. How do individuals and organizations justify these acts of terror. These acts can easily be labeled as terrorist actions. Terrorism is a growing international problem. In the recent years, new terrorist groups and organizations have been forming at an alarming rate. Governments have had little success in their attempts to resolve issues involving terrorism. One of the major problems in discussing terrorism is “establishing a generally accepted definition.” Terrorism can be described as, “the unlawful use of fear or force to achieve certain political, economical, or social aims.” By being so difficult... [tags: essays research papers]
529 words (1.5 pages)
- Introduction The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini is a national bestselling novel following the life of an Afghan boy after "the official end… in April 1978 with the communist coup d'état" referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Hosseini 39). On September 11, 2001 the United States' economy, government, and national defense were left crippled. Members of Al Qaeda, a militant Islamic group, hijacked and crashed planes into two World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and an attempted to attack the White House as well ("The 9/11 Commission Report").... [tags: Middle East, War, Terrorism]
1249 words (3.6 pages)
The mistaken criticism of Bush as a unilateralist and as uncooperative will now blow up in his critics' faces. When it is in America's interest (as he sees it), he will work with other nations. The "War against Terrorism" is perfect for changing his image to that of a multilateralist and internationalist. It is indeed in the common interest of most national governments not to have terrorists operating. Bush can come out on the side of the angels while pursuing his same policy of self-interest.
The mistake of Bush's critics has been to use "multilateralism" versus "unilateralism" as a way categorizing foreign policy. Self-interest crosses those categories.
There is, interestingly, an apparent overlap between the nurturant norms policy and an idealistic vision of the Bush administration's new war. The overlap is, simply, that it is a moral norm to refuse to engage in, or support, terrorism. From this perspective, it looks like Left and Right are united. It is an illusion.
In nurturant norms policy, anti-terrorism arises from another moral norm: Violence against innocent parties is immoral. But Bush's new war will certainly not follow that moral norm. Bush's military advisers appear to be planning massive bombings and infrastructure destruction that will certainly take the lives of a great many innocent civilians.
Within a year of the end of the Gulf War, the CIA reported that about a million Iraqi civilians had died from the effects of the war and the embargo-many from disease and malnutrition due to the US destruction of water treatment plants, hospitals, electric generation plants, and so on, together with the inability to get food and medical supplies. Many more innocents have died since from the effects of the war. Do we really think that the US will have the protection of innocent Afghanis in mind if it rains terror down on the Afghan infrastructure? We are supposedly fighting them because they immorally killed innocent civilians. That made them evil. If we do the same, are we any less immoral?
This argument would hold water if the Bush War on Terrorism were really about morality in the way that morality is understood by progressives/liberals. It is not. In conservative morality, there is fight between Good and Evil, in which "lesser" evils are tolerated and even seen as necessary and expected.
The argument that killing innocent civilians in retaliation would make us as bad as them works for liberals, not for conservatives.
The idealistic claim of the Bush administration is they intend to wipe out "all terrorism." What is not mentioned is that the US has systematically promoted a terrorism of its own and has been trained terrorists, from the contras to the mujahadeen to the Honduran death squads to the Indonesian military. Indeed, there are reports that two of the terrorists taking part in The Attack were trained by the US. Will the US government stop training terrorists? Of course not. It will deny that it does so. Is this duplicity? Not in terms of conservative morality and its view of Good versus Evil and lesser evils.
If the administration's discourse offends us, we have a moral obligation to change public discourse!
Be the change you want! If the US wants terror to end, the US must end its own contribution to terror. And we must also end terror sponsored not against the West but against others. We have made a deal with Pakistan to help in Afghanistan. Is it part of the deal that Pakistan renounce its own terrorism in Kashmir against India? I would be shocked if it were. The Bush foreign policy of self-interest does not require it.
The question must be asked. If that is not part of the deal, then our government has violated its own stated ideals; it is hypocritical. If the terrorism we don't mind-or might even like-is perpetuated, terrorism will not end and will eventually turn back on us, just as our support for the mujahadeen did.
We must be the change we want!
The foreign policy of moral norms is the only sane foreign policy. In the idea of responsibility for oneself, it remains practical. But through empathy and other forms of responsibility (protection, care, competence, effectiveness, community development), it would lead to international cooperation and a recognition of interdependence.