|
The Ukraine Crisis alerted the West to the “nationalist” sentiments among Russians that the Putin government has used to further its domineering ambitions. In doing so, Russia has revived the threat of war between major world powers and threatened internationalist dreams of an International Community devoted to international governance. Similarly, Chinese aggression, which is most apparent in the South China Sea Crisis, has upset the power dynamic of the region by straining ties with its neighbors. Rhetoric of the 2016 US Presidential Election, especially Donald Trump’s “America First” platform, has further exasperated fears that international governance is doomed.
The prosperity of the Twentieth Century was made possible thanks to US global ambitions for a world made safe for democracy and the willingness of most nations within the International Community to cooperate on global security, to pursue internationally brokered diplomatic engagement instead of armed conflict, and to build the global economy. The internationalist mindset that embraced global governance was the fruits of a new world order where strong and weak nations alike enjoyed equal sovereign rights. Strong nations benefited from the stability of a successful International Community and weaker nations were protected from their stronger revivals.
Comments
US Foreign Policy Politics Decrypted: International Governance Versus Nationalist Politics3/29/2016 US Secretary of State John Kerry has brought to light the concerns of foreign leaders over the current state of US politics. During an interview on CBS’ “Meet the Press,” Secretary Kerry commented on his experience with foreign leaders who are both “shocked” by the controversial rhetoric of the 2016 Presidential campaign and struggling to understand how the United States will engage the world under the next President. To truly understand shifts in US politics, one must understand the failures of US policies and the many differences among Americans who hope to change their government for the better. Where numerous conversations are needed to explain why Americans think some policies are good and others are bad, which the Washington Outsider has done through this blog, the NCTV45 companion show, and the CDN companion column focusing on national issues, the views of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump on foreign policy help explain why Americans, as well as non-Americans, are rebelling against traditional foreign policy thinking. Trump is beloved by many and absolutely detested by others, yet he outspoken nature is helping force uncomfortable issues to the light of the day, which means he is creating an opportunity to resolve these issues. The following was written by Guest Blogger Anant Mishra and does not reflect the views of The Washington Outsider or its staff.
Anant Mishra is a former Youth Representative to the United Nations. He has served extensively in the United Nations General Assembly as well as the Economic and Social Council. The makers of Cadbury Easter Eggs have sparked controversy by dropping the word “Easter” from the package of its iconic brand. In all likelihood, the subtle change of packaging will go unnoticed by those who have always called the Easter chocolates simply “Cadbury Eggs,” but the apparent effort to avoid the religious connotation of Easter is upsetting. Aside from the desecration of an iconic candy, critics of the move see it as part of a larger effort to “secularize” a popular religious holiday in order to make it more inclusive and appealing to non-Christians.
Easter is, of course, the most important holiday in Christianity, even when compared to Christmas, because it commemorates the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. As the selflessness, forgiveness, and hope of Jesus Christ are central to Christianity, attempts to transform Easter into a secular occasion threaten the cultural identity of Christians. In a broader context, it also raises questions over the right to maintain one’s cultural identity. Brussels Terrorist Attack: A Europe Under Siege Must Avoid These Four Pitfalls in Reacting3/23/2016 The Brussels suicide bombings add to rising fears that Middle Eastern and North Africa immigrants, particularly those connected to the Syrian Refugee Crisis, expose Europeans to added security risks. Whether the Brussels attackers were pressured to react after those who were responsible for the Paris Terrorist Attacks were arrested in Brussels or the Islamic State is planning a series of attacks across Europe as the US State Department has warned, the frequency of these crimes is extremely alarming. Like all crimes, terrorism cannot be eliminated, but these types of events instill a sense of fear that tends to enflame prejudices and incite counterproductive policies.
Carried out in the very capital of the European Union by a locally embedded Islamic State terrorist cell, which was apparently responsible for the Paris Terrorist Attacks months earlier, this terrorist attack demonstrates an inability of European leaders to secure their countries and keep their own Peoples safe. If EU leaders cannot secure their own capital, Europeans are left to question if their governments can protect them. Unfortunately, the growing list of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists in Europe is likely to provoke the same harmful reaction seen in the aftermath of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks. Learning from past mistakes, there are, at least, four pitfalls that must be avoided. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|
RSS Feed
