Hi Catherine
Your thoughts on this subject are very revealing and similar to the thread I earlier posted on the same subject. It is true that foreign policy became the cornerstone of a democratic republic inextricably linked with the declaration of independence. Initially one would think that a democratic republic should be the first priority before the forging of foreign alliances but the founding generation of America demonstrated practically that nation building work hand in hand with the establishment of foreign alliances based on mutual interests although they has never been any clear understanding of how interests are measured and served. They accomplished this through a selfless strategic vision, strategic thinking and capacity building. In terms of strategic vision with respect to the Declaration of Independence and the creation of foreign alliances, Herring said, "The interests of nations were therefore compatible rather than in conflict. The civilizing effect of free trade and greater understanding among people that would come from increased contact would promote harmony among nations" (Herring, 2008, 16).
It is obvious that these men looked at foreign policy from a selfless standpoint where it would benefit one another and promote a covenant bond among nations reminiscent of the greatest commandment that teaches about love your neighbor, as you love yourself. However, strategic thinking and capacity building usually are a mismatch with a selfless strategic vision. For instance, "The lure to entice France and other Europeans to support the rebellious colonies would be commerce" (Herring, 2008, 17). This is because it is hard to establish that "harmony among nations" would exist selflessly when a lure to entice-sounds like a conspiracy- is lurking in the selfish pursuit independence. In terms of capacity building, forged alliances accompanied the declaration of war as an indispensable factor for the acquisition of independence. Herring states that "Ninety percent of gunpowder used by the colonists during the first years of the war came from Europe" (Herring, 2008, 18)
In fact, when one puts this in the context of geopolitical realities and international relations, it tells us that no nation can stand on its own without being an integral part of a complex web of egocentric alliances that have shared interests in a given geopolitical context. What is even more intriguing from this reading is the fact that the Declaration of Independence was not precipitated by men who just got up one day and decided that they would be free from British oppression since they were entitled to natural and inalienable rights. The idea about a people being independent free and liberated from any condition of subjugation is always compelling. This notwithstanding, if an entitlement to independence is not backed by other entities outside of the figment of their imagination, it stands no chance of coming to fruition.
Your idea that the mistreatment of Native Americans potentially weaken foreign policy resonates with mine based on "bitter divisions within," (Herrings, 2008, 56). Whether nationalists or the war against Native Americans caused such divisions, it was definitely a huge concern to the goal of promoting a harmonious foreign policy. Yet, if the early Americans had the ability to negotiate and build foreign alliances through appeasement and commerce, why could they not appease the Native Indians? Did the early Americans fail to attribute natural and inalienable rights to Native Americans in terms of domestic policy?
Thank you
Jonathan
Bibliography
Herring C. George , From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
0 comments:
Post a Comment