Foreign Policy

What a large and complicated issue to tackle for this first installment of the issues!  I wanted to take the effort to do as much research as possible upon which to base my statements and claims, and I think this process will pay off in terms of providing a quality platform of discussion.  Before I dive right into current debates and opinion, it makes sense to get a historical context for foreign policy in the US.  Here are some excerpts from the last 230+ years:

The formative years of the government in the late 1700s were mostly occupied with wrestling independence away from Great Brittan and establishing ourselves as a legitimate sovereign nation, ironically concerned with repaying our debts accrued during the revolutionary war.  Then there was the matter of indigenous Native Americans occupying the land west of the colonies, during which policy was a pretty solid case of get out of the way or be killed.  Other issues with expansion were eased with the Louisiana purchase from France to help them finance their own war with the British, and despite trying to make a deal for Florida, the US simply cedes most of it from Spain with no retaliation.  The conclusion of the war of 1812 with Brittan left our young country in a prime position to not only have respect in the world, but also to keep pressing westward.
After that, piracy provided a constant threat to international trade and travel.  The US responded with naval forces to the Northern coast of Africa, where much of the piracy was not only based, but also sponsored by the region's governments!  As the country progressed through the 1800s, hostilities continued against various tribes and in 1835, Texas began the war for independence from Mexico.  Though not officially part of the USA yet, many Americans joined the fight since there were several American settlers living there, and was concluded after the decisive win at the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, admitted as a US state after a decade of existence as its own republic. 

Clearly my favorite part of US history and foreign policy

Unfortunately the Civil war broke out in 1861, devastating the country with various European countries ready to begin siding with the different factions, ultimately leading to the reunification under Lincoln.  International trade began to expand following the Civil War and a huge wave of immigrants arrived from Europe and Asia, along with increased foreign production competition.  By this time, the number of admitted US states was in the mid 40s.  The early 1900s saw America's true rise to prominence in the world with our involvement in World War 1, a result of the beginning of the industrial era and utilization of our vast natural resources, despite the fact that we tried to remain neutral on what we considered to be foreign affairs.  The 20s and 30s were a return to the desired neutrality, only for us to become once more involved in World War 2 after being attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan.  The decades following the Allied victory became a worldwide campaign to battle communism in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba; culminating in the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  Modern conflicts since have been fought in the Middle East, largely in the name of defending oil-producing countries from unstable leadership.  That, along with a rise of the internet and the easy spreading of ideas has generated the terrorist threat we see in today's headlines.  Non-combat foreign policy has been one of preservation of balance and encouragement of trade in an increasingly globalized world.

TL;DNR version of the above is that in America's history we have displayed an inconsistent foreign policy depending on the situation and what was best for us at the time, not necessarily what was right.



The first statement I would like to address is why the federal government should be responsible for foreign policy at all, a question to be raised prior to any discussion.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is the source of this power granted to Congress.  It can be interpreted (in my mind) by the following clauses:

3:  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4:  To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5:  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

10:  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11:  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 3 (the infamous Commerce Clause) seems basic enough, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between states, and because the framers for some reason did not consider Native American tribes as foreign nations, also included them.  Regulating commerce with foreign nations seems to grant Congress broad powers to dictate international exchange rates, economic embargos (Cuba), and maintaining healthy trade relations; which are almost always good for peace and stability.
Clause 4 establishes the power (and responsibility) for the federal government to regulate immigration into this country.  This is relevant to foreign policy in my mind, because we have granted asylum to political refugees in the past and can (theoretically) prevent immigrants from coming here from a country if we have reason to do so.  That power could certainly be wielded during diplomatic negotiations.
I included Clause 5 because establishment of the US Dollar and the Fed's oversight has extremely important implications to the rest of the world due to global exchange and the fact that many consider the Dollar to be the international currency.
Clause 10 matters because by definition, the oceans of the world are considered international territory, and enforcing a set of laws not only protects trade, but also helps secure travelers.  (sensing a theme here, yet?)
Clause 11, declaration of war is a give away.
And last but not least, I included Clause 15 for the power to repel invasions.  To me, that goes hand in hand with declaring war, but I wanted to be thorough.

Okay, now that the groundwork has been laid for a proper discussion, what does all of this mean?  Can powers granted to our own government really be applied in the face of other sovereign nations?  How long must we act as the world's police?  Why do we continue to engage in wars or occupations in foreign countries when we are $14 trillion+ in debt?  I think a simple pragmatic approach to these questions is one of free trade policy, offering nations who want it a model of our republic, and refusal to be involved in foreign conflict unless we actually declare war.  This would help keep us from appearing imperialistic to nations who are unwilling to accept our help, keep our budgets balanced, and keep our focus on fighting terrorism here in our country instead of waging expensive foreign non-wars.