American Foreign Policy and

[redyellow]

With the changes to Australian foreign policy (and law) after the signing of the free-trade agreement with America, I was left with a burning question in my mind. Through uncharacteristically interventionist policies, Australia is turning in to the hated America of the Southern Pan Asia region (albeit a much smaller and obviously weaker one). With the acceptance of Soloman Island asylum seekers who were attempting to escape persecution from the Indonesian government, relations with the nation have been at an all time low. Resentment from nations such as East Timor, Thailand and Indonesia has resulted from such policies.

My question is this: Is the American style interventionist foreign policy naturally inclined to invoke hatred towards the respective nation and ultimately provoke war?

[King Leonidas]

redyellow said:

My question is this: Is the American style interventionist foreign policy naturally inclined to invoke hatred towards the respective nation and ultimately provoke war?

I'd say it all depends on how long the country takes that route until they change it or somebody else comes to power and does so.

The U.S. has politicly came-out-of-it's-shell since the World Wars and isn't really in a position to get back in as the nearly 50+ years have shown.

-DL

[redyellow]

Leaving its shell was essential for the cold war (with proxy fighting through Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam) and was instated due to the extensiveness of Pearl Harbour. America and their allies are having a cold war hangover, with the small amount of enemies that they have; the often sub conscious exaggeration of existing problems is occurring. This drives military action. Unusually, there seems to be a similar amount of fear involved with modern terrorism as there was with the height of the cold war.

With an interventionist policy militarism is required to maintain the constant stream of wars that are fought by its respective nation, which leads to fear throughout the world due to its power. Australia (obviously) does not and can not have this important ingredient to cause the situation that America is in. However it does seem to intervene in the business of other nations in Pan Asia, which has led to anti-Australian sentiment with in the region. In the American situation, they are continuing to fight wars against governments and situations that were previously considered minor and irrelevent. This requires the aforementioned exaggeration to provide the villification of the enemy and propagate support from the American people.

Down-time between the actual serious conflicts still have a relatively high amount of military action, which causes anger towards the American people (as they aren't seen to have a true cause; especially by the terrorists who are angered by their actions). What happens when you get a large seemingly untouchable nation fighting and (in their eyes) ruining nations for their own self satisfaction? Terrorism, fear and anger, all directed towards and caused by the interventionist policy.

I could be wrong however.

[Ratwar]

I think it is obvious that interventionalist policys do cause hatred, and in extreme cases they lead to war. In fact, WWI was caused in part by the interventionalist policys of the Russian Czar as well as many other European countrys.

The problem is that an isolationist policy has faults of its own. For instance take WW2, the isolationist and appeasement policies of France and England arguably contributed to Germany's return to power.

So, what is best? Well, obviously a good mix. right now, with the world firmly in an anti-nationalistic mood, there is very little chance for a major war between world powers. An interventionalist policy carries few risks of accidently setting off World War 3, but the same can be said of an isolationist policy (since there is little chance of two nations setting off World War 3 while a nations isn't looking). In a perfect world, a interventionalist policy would be prefered, since it would get the facts straight and only fix (or attempt to fix) the problems needing a fix, sadly, we aren't in a perfect world. So the choice comes down to a simple question, is it really worth trying to save the world and perhaps doing the opposite? For me, the answer is yes, but I assure you that it is very easy for me to say that while sitting in my cushiony chair and using my new LCD screen. I might answer differently if I was put in a different situation.

The problem with an interventionalist policy is that nobody wins, and thus history is written by the losers. When you're an isolationist, and you only hear from the winners, the history is a much rosier look.

[King Leonidas]

ratwar said:

The problem is that an isolationist policy has faults of its own. For instance take WW2, the isolationist and appeasement policies of France and England arguably contributed to Germany's return to power.

Give 'em an inch and they take a mile... In your faces Chruchill and Chamberlian! ;D (though admitedly it seemed like a good idea at the time).

-DL

[thaddius]

To the OP.I would say that no, intervention does not solely lead to conflict. It is my theory that it is due to the nature of the country intervening that causes resentment and conflict, rather than the intervention itself. Take the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, all affluent, "western" countries that enjoy luxury that the vast majority of the world does not. Then look at Thailand or other South Pacific countries, generally desperately poor and either Buddhist or Muslim. When one of those countries had a rich, western country trying to direct its fate, they resent it and feel that it is akin to imperialism. Take as another example the deployment of Turkish troops to middle Eastern countries. Generally that is better received. This is possibly due to the fact that it is seen as an act of aid or goodwill, as opposed to one of imperialism or intervention.

[redyellow]

thaddius said:

Take as another example the deployment of Turkish troops to middle Eastern countries. Generally that is better received. This is possibly due to the fact that it is seen as an act of aid or goodwill, as opposed to one of imperialism or intervention etc.

Wouldn't an interventionist policy lead to other fears? With memories of the past fresh in their mind jealousy, wouldn't be the only thing that effects their perception of the intervening nation. While Turkey may have sent troops to other parts of the region, they couldn't really be considered an interventionist country. I know hypotheticals are widely hated, but: if a nation that has performed actions identical to America in their past and had a populace living in squalor, would a similar situation occur?

[morty14]

redyellow said:

My question is this: Is the American style interventionist foreign policy naturally inclined to invoke hatred towards the respective nation and ultimately provoke war?

Yes, and no.
Yes, it will invoke hatred in [target nation].
No, it will not provoke [target nation] to war, instead [interventionist nation] will show its people how much they are hated in [target nation] and then go to war in order to "pre-empt" the "threat" that [target nation] poses.