Nation In The Middle East example essay topic

With the beginning of a seemingly endless war on terrorism, and a shaky United States economy, now hardly seems the time to examine our general policy towards all other nations, and developing nations in particular. The wreckage of the World Trade Center is still smoldering, and our troops are marching on Kabul as I write. Nationalism is at a height only previously experienced during the World Wars. Every other car you see on the highway has "Old Glory" proudly flying in their window or on their antenna, some right next to their Rebel Flag. On the surface it appears the United States has pulled together for one more righteous cause, and evil, or those that oppose the US as they are commonly called, will surely fall.

We won't stand for innocent attacks on civilians, and those Afghanis and Osama bin Laden had better hide. If you don't believe this, not only are you un-American, but you must be a terrorist yourself. Quietly, however, the argument is being made among scholars and free thinkers in the United States that perhaps we are not the innocent victims we portray ourselves to be in the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. Some forward thinking minds even predicted a tragedy somewhat like this, but not on such a large scale. Unenlightened people ask why something like this could or would occur. What would make such a poor and unstable country like Afghanistan decide to stand up to the almighty United States?

The answer is not an easy one, and requires a large adjustment in what we expect in foreign relations, and how we see and treat the rest of the world as a whole. The United States is one of the last remaining super powers of the world, and we have the obligation to maintain and support good relations with the smaller and weaker nations throughout the world. We should take full advantage of this relationship in several different ways, all without exploiting our own power. First the U.S. must focus on investing and trading with those nations who have yet to become economic powers.

Second, we must implement a consistent foreign policy towards the Middle Eastern nations, and all third world nations in general. Third, the United States needs to respect the attempts and results of the democratization and religious revivals in the Middle East and Latin America, while taking a passive role in letting the Western type of democracy take its course. Fourth, the U.S. must ease and downplay its conflict with those civilizations that dislike the 'Western people' and their way of life. Obviously, foreign investment is necessary for the future of developing other nations as well as our own. There must be an emphasis on foreign investment and trade, otherwise the third world nations will continue to fall behind economically, technologically, and domestically, which could lead to an economic downfall for the U.S. as well.

The question then arises as to what the United States must do in order to have large trade agreements with other countries other than Japan and Mexico. In order for the U.S. to play a more active role in the economic and political development of many of these developing nations, it must first accept a different philosophy than its current one. First, it is imperative for the United States to play a similar role in Latin America to the one Japan has played with many of the developing nations in East Asia. The U.S. neighbors Latin America, and if it wants to play the role of big brother, it must accept the responsibility.

Japan has invested, traded, and been a guide for many of it's neighboring countries in East Asia, making them grow politically and economically while also profiting economically itself (Japan Remains 1996). The U.S. must realize that the economies of Latin American Nations will play an important part in the future of our own economy, and that it must begin to lead, invest, and aid not just Mexico, but countries such as Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, and Columbia into the twenty first century. The mainstay in American foreign policy has always been to promote and instill democracy. However, in order to do this in a foreign nation, the U.S. must be able to first establish a viable economic relationship and system within the desired nations. We should not expect or want a nation to switch from a total authoritarian government to a market economy; doing so would be a disaster. The United States rests too much on its ideological beliefs, when there is no need to do so.

Foreign countries seek our capital and trade routes, not our morals and culture. We, unfortunately, do not feel this is the case. The US has traditionally required all or nothing, in regards to demands on prospective trade partners, and political allies. The United States's tance towards Cuba is a notable example of this philosophy.

Instead, the U.S. has to be willing to allow developing nations to invest in U.S. markets before we invest in theirs, regardless of ideology. In return, a viable export / import system will be established. But it is essential that the economy of the developing nation be monitored and run by its own government, and the United States should only be there for advising purposes. When a reasonable system has finally been achieved, then a more American, laissez - faire type of economic network will be allowed to grow. If the greatest challenge the United States faces are implementing a foreign policy that is consistent throughout the Middle East, we " ve done nothing but shoot ourselves in he foot so far. Islamic nations aren't likely to be responsive to ideas such as human rights, and democracy.

These nations will never be responsive to western ideas when the United States continues to levy sanctions against them. The U.S. is lucky that it has an ally in Saudi Arabia and Israel, allowing them to implement many of these foreign policy agendas against the other Middle Eastern countries, without having to face serious economic consequences in the oil and gas industry. Oddly enough though, Saudi Arabia is probably as much against western ideologies as any nation in the Middle East. Women do not have equal rights, torture is frequent, there is no separation between church and state, and Saudi Arabia is extremely far from developing any sort of democracy (Miller 58).

Now, when the U.S. promotes democracy and human rights, why does it support one country and condemn the next? Throughout the Cold War, American foreign policy would give aid to any nation who opposes communism. So during that time the U.S. developed a 'you " re either with us or against us' type of policy, non- alignment. With this policy, many of the Middle Eastern countries became so called enemies with the U.S., which has led to unrest and hatred of western democracies. In this time of global economics, the United States cannot pick and choose which countries to invest in. In order for the U.S. to defeat the challenges it faces in the Middle East, it must start by supporting the entire Middle East.

Israel and Saudi Arabia may be the most attractive offers, but Syria and even Iran have vast resources that will be very valuable to our economy in the future. Of course we cannot forget about our dear friends off the coast of Miami, Cuba. What edge does a country like China hold over Cuba besides size? Nothing besides a larger source of cheap labor. Our current stance on Cuba was correct in 1962. Castro was indeed a communist, but only after the US, who he turned to first, refused to help him.

In 2001, however, it seems apparent that Castro has metamorphisized into something else. Castro has done an almost complete 180 in his political philosophy, and some would argue that Cuba is almost a democracy already. If we lifted our ineffective embargoes and opened the trade lines in Cuba, I see no reason why Castro would not open his society even more. Americans are missing out on a chance to change Cuba, both financially and politically. We have the chance to rebuild an entire economy from the ground up, and all we have to do is invest in it. These opportunities are not hypothetical either, but real apparent to other countries like Canada and the Europeans.

Everyone else in the world knows this already because they have made the necessary attitude adjustments and are in there rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty. Castro knows that he can't do this task of changing his entire structure himself, and it's only a matter of time before he finds someone to help that will most likely not be favorable to the US. It happened before when the US denied him and he turned to the USSR, there is no reason why we should let it happen again. As the supposed leader of the free world we should know better.

All the US does is preach about the importance of stability and free market systems, and the need for democracy. With an example like we are setting, why should anyone follow? Why should we do everything in our power to ensure neither survives in Cuba? It's time and has been for a long time to swallow our pride and admit we were wrong.

The rest of the free world already knows it. They sit in their Cuban financed offices, smoking big fat Cuban cigars laughing at our arrogance and us. (Smith) Next, the United States must respond to the problems of democratization and religious revival in the Middle East and Latin America. In the Middle East, there seems to be the notion that attempts at democratization would lead to the downfall of minority rights. As Judith Miller pointed out, 'The promotion of free elections immediately is likely to lead to the triumph of Islamic groups that have no commitment to democracy in any recognizable or meaningful form' (Miller 59).

What the United States must do is establish a representational or parliamentary process that recognizes all forms of political action. Simply promoting free elections would lead to a backlash in democratization efforts. The fear is in the idea of one group outlawing another. A democracy might be based on majoritarian rule; but all groups, whether they are Islamic fundamentalist or even Christian, must be a.