Archives for International

The Korean War has long been considered more apt for history books than for newspapers.  But strangely enough, that viewpoint is not shared by North Korea, which recently nullified the armistice that ended the Korean War back in 1953.  And while North Korea often acts belligerently, it seems to be stepping up its rhetoric against not only South Korea but also against the United States.

North Korea claims its recent martial actions, including the movement of a missile to its coast and direct military threats against the U.S., were instigated by joint U.S.-South Korean military operations that took place last month.  However, this statement should not be trusted, as the United States military commonly works alongside South Korea without receiving such an inflammatory response from the North.  After all, the U.S. has kept tens of thousands of troops in South Korea for years, and North Korea has rarely protested in such a threatening way.

Why then is North Korea increasing the scope of its military endeavors?  The answer appears to not involve international disputes but instead is focused on domestic politics.  North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un might not need to worry about elections, but he is still a young leader with a great deal to prove to his people.  Navigating the country through a crisis – even a manufactured one – will help him gain credibility and mettle.  This domestic focus seems to be the underlying reason for North Korea’s belligerence, and it is also the reason why other countries aren’t afraid of North Korea’s hostile actions.  Kim Jong-Un could care less if his missiles spur fear internationally, because he really wants them to inspire respect at home.

It’s not just North Korea that has been handing out mixed signals.  China, which is North Korea’s main trading partner and benefactor, has been doing exactly the same.  On one side, China has maintained both relations and trade with North Korea.  But on the other hand, China has allowed new economic sanctions against the North, bucking the trend of using its powerful position on the United Nations Security Council to block increased sanctions.  However, most of China’s recent criticism has been limited to words, not actions.  With the notable exception of allowing for those increased sanctions, China has merely been slapping North Korea on the wrist for their belligerence.  Considering that China is North Korea’s main ally and holds great influence over North Korea, it could do much more to stop the North’s recent aggression.

But while China may be maintaining somewhat of a relationship with North Korea, this recent aggression from North Korea will likely make the U.S.-North Korean relationship even more rocky.  Kim Jong-Un is willing to threaten America in order to improve his domestic standing, showing how little he values possible cooperation with the U.S. in the future.  Still, this standoffish tone towards the U.S. isn’t just a recent development, as it has manifested itself throughout Kim Jong-Un’s short tenure in office.  Even last year, Kim Jong-Un was quick to violate the terms of a food aid deal with the U.S. in order to test his country’s missile technology.  When this food aid deal was being created, we here at RantAWeek hedged our bets, arguing ”there is no specific policy-based reason that would make Kim Jong Un voluntarily give up the nuclear program his father so obstinately worked to create” and warning that “failure to successfully execute this compromise could doom diplomatic relationships with the North Koreans for years to come”.

Kim Jong-Un still lacks any policy-based reason to stop his aggression, especially since China isn’t exerting pressure as harshly as it could be.  Worse, North Korea seems to have abandoned plans to cooperate with the United States.  But at the very least, the U.S. should take comfort in the fact that North Korea is not an international threat, just a country willing to sacrifice international cooperation for a new leader’s domestic credentials.

In a multi-part article, RantAWeek editor Tyler Miksanek explains why the doctrine of American exceptionalism ultimately hurts American foreign policy.  This is the 3nd installment- so first read Part 1 and Part 2.

Even though the tenets of American exceptionalism have largely failed the U.S. in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is still possible to view exceptionalism as the best path to pursue in foreign policy.  Following this train of logic, many analysts argue that American exceptionalism is a necessary part of world affairs.  Former New York Times correspondent Clifford May sums up this viewpoint by arguing, “At present, there is no substitute for American leadership.  America is the indispensible nation.  That is what makes it exceptional” (May).  May’s belief views America’s large defense budget and frequent interventions not as consequences of nationalistic narcissism but instead as needed forces for global peace.  No other nation, after all, has the money or the resources to easily finance America’s 700 billion dollar defense budget.  According to this argument, even the influence of emerging powers should be discounted.  While a nation like China may soon be able to obtain the needed resources and finance a similarly large budget, America doesn’t want a nation with undemocratic values having an increased say in world affairs.

However nice the ‘indispensible’ excuse sounds, it still fails to address key problems with American exceptionalism.  While Americans like to believe their country is needed to help run world affairs, there is already an organization that is supposed to do just that – the United Nations.  But instead of cooperating with other nations at this readily available world forum, the United States often chooses to ignore global initiatives in favor of its own policies.  The Boston Review explains “There is a long list of such self-exemptions [including] the refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty regulating the pollution of the environment [and] the refusal to strengthen the convention on biological weapons” (Zinn).  Even though the United States has the ability to partially relinquish its role as the world’s policeman, American leaders often steer the country away from international cooperation.  And while the U.S. cites certain abuses of human rights when explaining why it refuses to closely cooperate with emerging countries like China, the Boston Review also points out that America has a history of being hypocritical about its own human rights abuses. “The United States sends suspects—people who have not been tried or found guilty of anything—to prisons in Morocco, Egypt, Libya, and Uzbekistan, countries that the State Department itself says use torture” (Zinn).  The United States argues from an assumed moral high ground, but in reality has a questionable recent history of human rights as well.  So while many Americans believe that an exceptional United States is the best force for good on the world stage, the truth is a bit more muddled.  Instead of America being the only indispensible superpower, the U.S. is instead unfairly hesitant to share power with other nations.

United States policymakers have adopted the belief of American exceptionalism to support the United States unilaterally dictating international affairs, but this belief ultimately prevents collaboration and hurts the nation’s foreign policy.  By ignoring the opinions of other nations, the U.S. has strained relationships, and by being overconfident in its military, America has worked itself into prickly situations such as Afghanistan.  While some people are quick to call this exceptionalist thinking necessary for foreign affairs, that thought process is just another manifestation of America’s inflated ego.  Economist Jeff Faux explains in The Servant Economy that “only in the United States did a majority agree with the statement ‘Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others’.  Even the notoriously proud French were only half as convinced of their exceptional culture as Americans were” (16).  This ‘holier than thou’ attitude might be comforting, but it actually hurts America’s position in the world.  By refusing to work with other nations, the United States burns bridges that might be needed in the future.  Cooperation, not exceptionalism, is the key to a more successful foreign policy as well as increased global stability.

Faux, Jeff. The Servant Economy: Where America’s Elite Is Sending the Middle Class. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.

May, Clifford D. “In Defense of American Exceptionalism.” National Review. National Review Online, 2 June 2011. Web. 3 Mar. 2013.

Zinn, Howard. “The Power and the Glory.” Boston Review. Boston Review, Summer 2005. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.

In a multi-part article, RantAWeek editor Tyler Miksanek explains why the doctrine of American exceptionalism ultimately hurts American foreign policy.  This is the 2nd installment – for Part 1 – click here.  To find Part 3 – click here.

In part 1, we left off with the idea that by following the doctrine of American exceptionalism in regard to our drone program, the United States ignores the potential for valuable relationships and makes enemies instead of friends.  But that’s not the only trouble American exceptionalism has gotten us into.

The unclear legality of drone strikes also makes America seem like an aggressor, placing U.S. foreign policy in an increasingly negative light.  International uproar over the use of drones, often leads to criticism that America attacks foreign nations indiscriminately.  Unfortunately, with improperly used force, the United States is making this criticism easy.  The Economist explains that “the vast majority [of drone victims] appear to have been militants, but some have been unlucky civilians” (“Unmanned”).  Because the drone program has occasionally killed civilians, America has aroused acrimony and discontent across the Middle East.  However, the acceptance of American exceptionalism means that U.S. leaders ignore this international outrage in favor of continuing American policies.  After all, widespread controversy has not stopped the Obama administration from expanding the drone program into other countries.  Even while receiving international backlash for using drones in Pakistan, Obama has allowed an exponential increase of drone strikes in Yemen.  Instead of cooperation, the doctrine of exceptionalism has led to America ignoring other nations.  This unilateral approach complicates foreign policy as former allies become estranged.  The more that other nations dislike the U.S., the more difficult it will become to manage diplomacy abroad.

The hostility the U.S. has created in Pakistan through its use of drones is dangerous because it mirrors the hostility created during America’s 1980s involvement in Afghanistan.  That intervention in Afghanistan paved the way for the Taliban to seize control of the nation and then encourage terrorism against the United States.  But considering that an American intervention led to the Taliban’s rise, it is a little ironic that America’s plan to oust the Taliban was another intervention.  However, twelve years into the Afghan war, this plan to oust the Taliban has not been successful.  According to the London Guardian, the Taliban is still strong enough to carry out brazen attacks against Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense – the very building that should be protecting Afghanistan from these sort of attacks (Graham).  Even when the U.S. is working under clear terms of international law, unlike the case with Pakistan, its attempts to intervene still appear to be failing.  The root of the problem lies once again with American exceptionalism, as these exceptionalist beliefs spur trust that the American military can defeat all of America’s foes.  This logic dictates that the U.S. military is powerful enough to win conflicts against militant networks like the Taliban, but the results of the twelve year Afghan War say otherwise.  Original optimism in the military’s ability dragged America into what soon became a mess in Afghanistan.  Against exceptionalist ideology, twelve years of commitment from the world’s most powerful military has done little to ensure stability.

America’s overconfidence did not stop with the decision to invade Afghanistan, as American troops were also overly optimistic in their ability to train Afghan security forces to better defend themselves against the Taliban.  Unfortunately, for all the American optimism involved, the program has by and large been a failure.  In regard to the supposedly trained Afghan troops, the New York Times explains “the crucial back end of the army — the logistics and supply teams that get bullets, fuel, food and water to where they need to be — is woefully unready, American and even some Afghan officers say” (Rosenberg).  One of the tenets of American exceptionalism is that countries in need should be taught to copy the American model of repairing their problems.  Following this viewpoint, the training program was designed to make the Afghan army more like America’s army.  However, as the current situation in Afghanistan clearly shows, the American model does not always work.  Afghanistan is in a time of need, but all the American assistance and training they have received has not led to a successful combat record against the Taliban.  American exceptionalism led to optimism that Afghan forces trained in American fighting techniques could keep the Taliban at bay, but years of unsuccessful efforts have proved this optimism wrong.

Graham-Harrison, Emma. “Taliban Suicide Bomber Attacks Afghan Ministry of Defence.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 09 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Rosenberg, Matthew. “U.S. Military Faces Fire as It Pulls Out of Afghanistan.” New York Times 16 Feb. 2013: A1. The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.

“Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – Death From Afar.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 3 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

In a multi-part article, RantAWeek editor Tyler Miksanek explains why the doctrine of American exceptionalism ultimately hurts American foreign policy.

America is in love with itself.  The crux of this national narcissism is written into the message of ‘America, the Beautiful’, a song which triumphantly proclaims “America! America! God shed His Grace on thee”.  While citizens of other nations also have national pride, Americans have taken their nationalism to a whole new level, even claiming divine intervention as being the source of the country’s prosperity.  However, the idea of American exceptionalism transcends domestic boundaries, and political journalist Glen Greenwald explains that “this nationalistic prerogative, is, far and away, the primary objective of America’s foreign policy community” (Greenwald).  Many of our nation’s leaders and policymakers use American exceptionalism as a rationale for intervention in world affairs, giving the United States the role of ‘world policeman’.  Unfortunately, many of the United States’ recent interventions, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrate that the pursuit of American exceptionalism in world affairs might not be as beneficial to the nation as many Americans think.  The premise of American exceptionalism in regard to America’s place in the world is not only misguided, but also creates hostility that is ultimately detrimental to our foreign policy goals.

American exceptionalism has played a crucial role in American foreign policy, often creating a justification for American involvement overseas.  America views international order as a national duty, and as the Iraq invasion demonstrated, America has no qualms about intervening unilaterally.  In just the last decade, America has intervened not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Libya.  However,  America does not simply become involved in the affairs of other nations.  It also stays involved, maintaining a presence long after the original conflict has subsided.  After all, the Korean War ended sixty years ago, but the U.S. still maintains a force of almost 30,000 troops in South Korea.  All this interventionism showcases the belief that American involvement is a crucial component of global security.  Ex-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressed this view on Meet the Press when he explained, “We have the most powerful military force on the face of the Earth right now.  It is important in terms of providing stability and peace in the world” (“February”).  However, America’s exceptionally large military does not come cheap, meaning that America is only able to pursue interventionist policies by dramatically outspending other nations.

It is logical to assume that if America is spending an unparalleled amount of money on its military, then the military should successfully support the nation’s foreign policy goals.  However, the drone program in Pakistan, both expensive and controversial, shows that this assumption is not the reality.  The United States has carried out more than 300 drone strikes in Pakistan over the last ten years, but Pakistan remains firm in its belief that the U.S. lacks any right to carry out drone strikes within their borders.  Retaliating to what they consider American aggression, Pakistani leaders have called the U.S. drone program both a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and illegal.  But following exceptionalist ideology, President Obama has ignored these protests in favor of U.S. involvement, believing American counterterrorism interests should not be sacrificed to placate the Pakistani government.  The Economist points out that while Obama has tried to defend the legality of his drone programs, he has made sure to avoid the mention of “a principle that some lawyers regard as indispensible: the consent of the country where the attack is to take place” (“Unmanned”).  America’s blatant disregard for Pakistan’s opinion has caused anti-American sentiments in Pakistan, often sparking negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy.  In 2011, these strained tensions led the Pakistani government to close a vital supply route for American troops into Afghanistan.  Without this crucial route, America’s counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East were greatly hindered.  In order to more successfully combat terrorism, the United States should be developing strategic partnerships with countries like Pakistan where terrorism often occurs.  However, by following the doctrine of exceptionalism and refusing to cooperate, the United States ignores the potential for valuable relationships and makes enemies instead of friends.

Want to continue? – see part 2.

Greenwald, Glenn. “The Premises and Purposes of American Exceptionalism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 18 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.

“Meet the Press.” Meet the Press. NBC. 3 Feb. 2013. Nbcnews.com. National Broadcasting Corporation, 3 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. Transcript.

“Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – Death From Afar.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 3 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.