Some highlights from the SecState to be:
"Clinton, 61, intended to emphasize areas of foreign policy in which she and Obama think alike, including their conviction that in order to make gains abroad the United States needs to strengthen its domestic economy, the official said."
"Borrowing a phrase meant to signal a move away from the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, Clinton said, "We must use what has been called `smart power,' the full range of tools at our disposal," she said. "With `smart power,' diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy."
Fascinating. The first is reminiscent of Hamilton and, eventually, Monroe's foreign policy doctrine: the US' foreign policy should be to boost GDP and domestic well-being. From a public-choice standpoint, for statesmen facing re-election in four years, the successful implementation of policy depends on political support domestically. America's dependency on China for fueling its debt spending also underscores the US' need to move away from a fiscal dependence on its Asian rival by expanding GDP to fund American activities with American tax money. This blog will continue to repeat its mantra that the US must also limit its dependence on Middle-Eastern energy sources. Being able to print paper for goods because so much of American dollars live their lives in the foreign reserves of central banks is well and good economically; but the ethics of foreign policy and economics are different. For foreign policy's sake, America -- however economically viable Mr Friedman's model may be -- must move away from its heavy borrowing from China.
Turning domestically for solutions to problems abroad is an admirable solution.
This blog, in previous years (oh, the arrogance of youth) presumed to propose diplomatic maneuvers in the Middle-East to isolate Iran and build a coalition to contain and pressure the Persians. Diplomacy must have a place in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and it will involve not only America's traditional UNSC allies in the EU, but also regional partners. Iran must be painted as a greater threat to Arab sovereignty than Israeli or American regional influence.
The two topics relate interestingly for me because although your correspondent calls, on one hand, for more unilateral maneuvering room by moving away from a dependence on China, this blog also recognizes that Sino-American relations can never deteriorate too far precisely because of that interlocked relationship.
I predict America will prefer more unilateral movement in the next four years and act accordingly both in Asia and in the Middle-East. Unless, of course, Mr Obama does truly embody a radical change in the way America conducts its affairs and prefer close interlocking relationships as a guarantor of peace.
Like the posh-ambassador appointments hype, this blog is skeptical of Mr Obama's real desire for change.
"Clinton, 61, intended to emphasize areas of foreign policy in which she and Obama think alike, including their conviction that in order to make gains abroad the United States needs to strengthen its domestic economy, the official said."
"Borrowing a phrase meant to signal a move away from the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, Clinton said, "We must use what has been called `smart power,' the full range of tools at our disposal," she said. "With `smart power,' diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy."
Fascinating. The first is reminiscent of Hamilton and, eventually, Monroe's foreign policy doctrine: the US' foreign policy should be to boost GDP and domestic well-being. From a public-choice standpoint, for statesmen facing re-election in four years, the successful implementation of policy depends on political support domestically. America's dependency on China for fueling its debt spending also underscores the US' need to move away from a fiscal dependence on its Asian rival by expanding GDP to fund American activities with American tax money. This blog will continue to repeat its mantra that the US must also limit its dependence on Middle-Eastern energy sources. Being able to print paper for goods because so much of American dollars live their lives in the foreign reserves of central banks is well and good economically; but the ethics of foreign policy and economics are different. For foreign policy's sake, America -- however economically viable Mr Friedman's model may be -- must move away from its heavy borrowing from China.
Turning domestically for solutions to problems abroad is an admirable solution.
This blog, in previous years (oh, the arrogance of youth) presumed to propose diplomatic maneuvers in the Middle-East to isolate Iran and build a coalition to contain and pressure the Persians. Diplomacy must have a place in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and it will involve not only America's traditional UNSC allies in the EU, but also regional partners. Iran must be painted as a greater threat to Arab sovereignty than Israeli or American regional influence.
The two topics relate interestingly for me because although your correspondent calls, on one hand, for more unilateral maneuvering room by moving away from a dependence on China, this blog also recognizes that Sino-American relations can never deteriorate too far precisely because of that interlocked relationship.
I predict America will prefer more unilateral movement in the next four years and act accordingly both in Asia and in the Middle-East. Unless, of course, Mr Obama does truly embody a radical change in the way America conducts its affairs and prefer close interlocking relationships as a guarantor of peace.
Like the posh-ambassador appointments hype, this blog is skeptical of Mr Obama's real desire for change.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
skewz
Chris MacDonald
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments