Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Awful, But There’s a Better Alternative than the Establishment’s Version
By Lawrence Wittner
938 words
Since the advent of the Trump administration, large numbers of Americans have been aghast at its narrow nationalist approach to world affairs. But many of them are also uneasy about the alternative championed by the foreign policy Establishment.
The Trump “America First” approach has largely dispensed with American-led alliances of the past and, instead, emphasized U.S. “deals” with powerful, often authoritarian regimes, threats of unleashing military power against smaller, weaker countries, and the abandonment of treaties and pretenses about defending human rights. To undergird this policy, Trump has secured major increases in U.S. military spending, scrapped the Obama administration’s efforts at nuclear arms control and disarmament, and blocked refugees from entering the United States.
Appalled, the U.S. foreign policy Establishment has fought back―lambasting Trump for eroding America’s alliances and undermining U.S. world “leadership.” But that Establishment’s own foreign policy, conducted over the previous decades, was characterized by U.S.-dominated military alliances, soaring Pentagon budgets, and numerous wars. Indeed, since World War II, the United States has been almost continuously at war. Moreover, its regime change operations have numbered in the dozens, with some of the most notorious occurring in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, Chile, and Iraq.
Trump’s nationalist approach has its roots in the original foreign policy of the United States. George Washington’s farewell address of 1796 warned of “entangling alliances,” and the new nation generally did avoid them right up until 1917.
This go-it-alone approach―facilitated by the two oceans separating the United States from wars in Europe, Africa, and Asia―was broken by America’s military alliance with other nations during World War I. Although a brief retreat into nationalism occurred in the aftermath of that bloody conflict, American entry into the Second World War cemented an alliance approach. Remaining more or less firm through wars and assorted global crises, it has characterized U.S. foreign policy right up to the arrival of the Trump administration.
However, at the same time that the nationalist and alliance approaches dominated U.S. foreign policy, there emerged a third alternative: global governance.
It started with 19th century peace organizations that championed the development of an international organization that could resolve conflicts among nations short of war. By the early twentieth century, even many government officials began to toy with the idea of creating a global authority, and Woodrow Wilson insisted on making a League of Nations a part of the World War I peace settlement at Versailles.
When the Second World War convinced statesmen and millions of people around the world that the League had been too weak to prevent fascist aggression and the murderous, worldwide conflict that ensued, the victorious Allies created a somewhat more powerful successor to foster international peace and security: the United Nations.
Even so, during the following years, the U.S. government―like the governments of the other great powers―while giving lip service to the United Nations, slipped back into a more traditional approach of ignoring the will of the world organization when its decisions ran contrary to what they considered “the national interest.”
And this remains the key factor undermining effective global governance. Despite Washington’s treaty commitment to have the United Nations handle issues of international peace and security, as well as vital humanitarian ones, the U.S. government has repeatedly chosen to fall back upon the nationalist and alliance approaches to world affairs. Or, to put it another way, the United States (like the other great powers) has been unwilling to let the United Nations do the job it is supposed to do, and which needs to be done.
Certainly, tackling that job is more imperative than ever before. We live in a far more dangerous world than in the late 19th century, when the first serious plans to create an effective world governance system were discussed. Today, conventional war has more potential for mass destruction than at any time in world history, while nuclear war is capable of annihilating virtually all life on earth.
Furthermore, we live in a far more interconnected world, which faces problems that can only be effectively addressed by international action. No single nation, or small group of nations, can solve problems like climate change, environmental destruction, refugee resettlement, exploitation by multinational corporations, terrorism, and world poverty. These are global problems that require global solutions.
Fortunately, global governance remains remarkably popular among Americans.
An October 2017 poll of U.S. voters found that 79 percent of respondents declared their support for continuing the existence of the United Nations. This represented an increase in support since 2009, when 69 percent said the world organization was necessary. In addition, 88 percent of U.S. respondents (including 80 percent of Republicans) affirmed that it was important for the United States to play an active role in the United Nations.
Furthermore, many Americans favor expanding the power of the United Nations. In a 2008 poll, 79 percent of U.S. respondents said that “strengthening the United Nations” should be an important U.S. foreign policy goal. Only 21 percent disagreed. In fact, American support for a stronger United Nations was very consistent over the preceding three decades, with roughly eight out of ten respondents favoring it.
Although polling on this issue has almost entirely disappeared since 2008, a November 2013 Pew survey continued to find that 79 percent of American respondents gave strengthening the United Nations either a top priority or some priority as a goal for U.S. foreign policy.
Consequently, people searching for an alternative to the nationalist and military alliance-driven approaches of the past would do well to consider strengthened global governance. It’s a foreign policy that has enormous potential for addressing current world problems, as well as substantial public support.
—30—
Dr. Lawrence Wittner, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. He is the author of Confronting the Bomb(Stanford University Press).
==================
Judge Brett Kavanaugh is exactly the type of judge we need on the Supreme Court—he will uphold the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.
Democrats know this and so they have resorted to outrageous stalling tactics in Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. This isn’t “deliberation,” it is obstructionism, plain and simple. The proof is in the numbers:
Schumer and friends are clearly obstructing. Sign this petition in support of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation!
Thank you for fighting for the future of the Supreme Court and our nation.
Jessica Anderson
Vice President
Heritage Action for America
---------------------------------
January 1 Honey Bee Colonies Down Slightly for Operations with Five or More Colonies
Honey bee colonies for operations with five or more colonies in the United States on January 1, 2018 totaled 2.63 million colonies, down slightly from January 1, 2017. The number of colonies in the United States on April 1, 2018 was 2.69 million colonies. During 2017, honey bee colonies on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 were 2.64 million, 2.69 million, 2.99 million, and 2.85 million colonies, respectively.
Honey bee colonies lost for operations with five or more colonies from January through March 2018, was 425 thousand colonies, or 16 percent. The number of colonies lost during the quarter of April through June 2018 was 270 thousand colonies, or 10 percent. During the quarter of October through December 2017, colonies lost totaled 425 thousand colonies, or 15 percent, the highest of any quarter in 2017. The quarter in 2017 with the lowest number of colonies lost was April through June, with 286 thousand colonies lost, or 11 percent.
Honey bee colonies added for operations with five or more colonies from January through March 2018 was 513 thousand colonies. The number of colonies added during the quarter of April through June 2018 was 726 thousand. During the quarter of April through June 2017, 613 thousand colonies were added, the highest number of honey bee colonies added for any quarter of 2017. The quarter of October through December 2017 added 205 thousand colonies, the least number of honey bee colonies added for any quarter of 2017.
Honey bee colonies renovated for operations with five or more colonies from January through March 2018 was 289 thousand colonies, or 11 percent. During the quarter of April through June 2018, 715 thousand colonies, or 27 percent, were renovated. The quarter in 2017 with the highest number of colonies renovated was April through June with 763 thousand colonies renovated, or 28 percent. The quarter in 2017 with the lowest number of colonies renovated was October through December 2017, with 214 thousand or 8 percent. Renovated colonies are those that were requeened or received new honey bees through a nuc or package.
Honey bee colonies renovated for operations with five or more colonies from January through March 2018 was 289 thousand colonies, or 11 percent. During the quarter of April through June 2018, 715 thousand colonies, or 27 percent, were renovated. The quarter in 2017 with the highest number of colonies renovated was April through June with 763 thousand colonies renovated, or 28 percent. The quarter in 2017 with the lowest number of colonies renovated was October through December 2017, with 214 thousand or 8 percent. Renovated colonies are those that were requeened or received new honey bees through a nuc or package.
Honey bee colonies renovated for operations with five or more colonies from January through March 2018 was 289 thousand colonies, or 11 percent. During the quarter of April through June 2018, 715 thousand colonies, or 27 percent, were renovated. The quarter in 2017 with the highest number of colonies renovated was April through June with 763 thousand colonies renovated, or 28 percent. The quarter in 2017 with the lowest number of colonies renovated was October through December 2017, with 214 thousand or 8 percent. Renovated colonies are those that were requeened or received new honey bees through a nuc or package.
January 1 Honey Bee Colonies Down 9 Percent for Operations with Less than Five Colonies
Honey bee colonies for operations with less than five colonies in the United States on January 1, 2017 totaled 40.0 thousand down 9 percent from January 1, 2016. During 2017, honey bee colonies on April 1, July 1, and October 1 were 35.0 thousand, 43.0 thousand, and 39.0 thousand, respectively.
Honey bee colonies lost for operations with less than five colonies during the quarter of January through March 2017 was 13.5 thousand colonies, the highest number of honey bee colonies lost during any quarter for 2017. The quarter in 2017 with the least number of colonies lost was April through June, with 4.20 thousand colonies.
Honey bee colonies added for operations with less than five colonies during the quarter of April through June 2017 was 12.5 thousand colonies, the highest number of honey bee colonies added during any quarter of 2017. The quarter in 2017 with the least number of colonies added was October through December, with 960 colonies.
Honey bee colonies renovated for operations with less than five colonies during the quarter of April through June 2017 was 4.40 thousand colonies, the highest number of honey bee colonies renovated during any quarter of 2017. The quarter in 2017 with the least number of colonies renovated was October through December, with 1.10 thousand colonies.
During 2017, the highest reported colony stressor was varroa mites, with 26.3 percent of the colonies reported to be affected. This is a 5 percent increase from the previous year.
Honey bee colonies lost with Colony Collapse Disorder symptoms on operations with less than five colonies was 6.00 thousand colonies during 2017, a 9 percent increase from 2016. Colonies lost with Colony Collapse Disorder symptoms were reported to meet all of the following criteria: 1) Little to no build-up of dead bees in the hive or at the hive entrance 2) Rapid loss of adult honey bee population despite the presence of queen, capped brood, and food reserves 3) Absence or delayed robbing of the food reserves 4) Loss not attributable to varroa or nosema loads.
For a full copy of the Honey Bee Colonies report please visit www.nass.usda.gov. For state specific questions please contact:
Arizona – Dave DeWalt 1-800-645-7286 Colorado – William R. Meyer 1-800-392-3202 Montana – Eric Sommer 1-800-835-2612 New Mexico – Longino Bustillos 1-800-530-8810 Utah – John Hilton 1-800-747-8522 Wyoming – Rhonda Brandt 1-800-892-1660
