A Journal of United States Foreign Policy: Critical Analysis of Foreign Articles - Annotated Bibliography Example

 A Journal of United States Foreign Policy Critical Analysis of Foreign Articles 1. Week 1 USA Foreign Policy Article Topic: America’s Hottest Export: Weapons Arms sale to the Middle East are booming. The defense industry surprising partner in the race to arm the world? President Obama Author: Mina Kimes, Fortunes Magazine, February 28, 2011 The article represent a startling revelation regarding America’s involvement in arming the Middle East and at the same time reviving its economy especially in terms of providing employment for companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon. The biggest beneficiary of the arms sale is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which successfully negotiated with the United States Department of Defense an arms package deal worth $60 billion dollars, and secure them 84 planes inclusive of 70 Apache attack helicopters made by Boeing as well as fleet of F-15’S The US Department of Defense has tripled its export of arms sales, to the tune of $103b, compared to $13b per year between 1995 and 2005. Government officials claimed the reason for the boom in sales is demand for the weapons, but Kimes noted that American weapons are the best and most coveted in the world. The biggest supporter of the arms sales to foreign countries is President Obama, who recently secured a $4b deal with India. The philosophy behind the President strategy Kimes is projecting is that by arming these countries, United States of America is reducing it levels of oversight in time s of conflicts, providing employment for 200, 000 employees, as well as enforce a potent force of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East. The strategy gives the President and the State Department according to Kimes (2010), tremendous negotiating clout with the buyers, in that demands can be made that in a quid pro quo manner that meets US needs in other critical areas of its foreign policy. Critics are not buying the strategy, in that it could backfire in tumultuous times like in the1970, when the US sold arms to The Shah of Iran, who was overthrown shortly afterwards, leaving Ayatollah Khomeini; a great enemy of the country, to become the unfortunate inheritor. They also cited the recent Tunisian and Egyptian leaders who were also sold arms but suffered the same fate. Close investigation revealed that the heads of companies like Boeing, and Lockheed Martin are playing politics with the United States military leaders to ensure they receive government contracts, as well as increase their exports of arms to the world. They ensure they maintain control by having offices near the Pentagon, and recruit top military leaders into their ranks as soon as they leave their military post. Additionally, when they are complying to the foreign policy of the government regarding submitting a quota of their overseas sales for any upcoming period, as well as the country they are selling to, they submit highly fabricated figures which bears no relationships to what they will eventually realized. America with the support of its President Barak Obama, according to Kimes (2011), are championing world peace on one hand and is the leading suppliers of arms to the same world on the other hand, and just cannot have it both ways. Analysis America is taking a dangerous route that can backfire and lead to deadly and costly repercussions. The political and industrial leaders seem to forget their history, and the fact that the present political landscape can shift suddenly. The world is no longer isolated because events in one place can affect several countries in others. American arms manufacturers especially Boeing and Lockheed Martin are being driven by greed and selfishness to lobby the government to change its foreign policy towards volatile and unstable regions of the world, so that they can sell them arms, which may one day be used to kill Americans. The Government is guilty of playing politics by using the arms sales to foreign countries as a means to create employment for the arms manufacturing sector of the country, rather than re-tooling, re-training, because it is striving to ensure it maintain the popularity percentage necessary to win the next elections. The Government foreign policy regarding the selling of arms to the other countries is of little use, if those elected to ensure compliance are architect of greed, selfishness and political popularity. 2. Week 2. Date: 02/14/11 Foreign Policy Article: The Case for and against extreme Immigration Reform Author: McDonald, Heather (2010) Forbes www.forbes.com The primary effect of Immigration Amnesties in the Unites States and Europe has been to increase more illegal immigration, writes McDonald (2010), in that it sends a signal to the prospective border crosser, that if he or she can just get in, then legal status will eventually be granted. Illegal entries unfortunately increase after the US Immigration and Reform and Control Act of 1996 came into effect. The make-up of the illegal immigrant was a 74% composite of Mexican, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and El Salvadorians, most of who were low skilled, and have been a burden to the Us economy according to some experts. The thinking is to send them home, because they are uneducated, most of them assimilate downwards in the society, and their third generation female offspring has the highest pregnancy rate in the country. Attorney at Law, Howard W. Foster thinks it’s ridiculous to have one million legal immigrants and still have high unemployment. He believes that illegal immigration prevents millions of American from dying from scurvy, because they are the ones who pick the oranges seen in the markets. Illegal immigration also hold down salaries as well as keep jobs in America, the attorney claims, but not many large organizations that benefit from it will admit this as a fact. Who is responsible for enforcing US immigration statutes? is the question being asked after a 2006 raid on Swift, by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security nabbed 1300 purportedly illegal immigrants, and a judge later caused the suit to drop saying, the plaintiff had no way of knowing an illegal from a legal migrant worker, and the company went out of business and was sold to a Brazilian interest. Should they be sent home when they are no proper system in place to effectively determine their status? Should they be sen home when they can breach even the stringent Whitehouse security system? Should the money spend securing the walls be spent pursuing home grown terrorist? Mohawk would agree now to send them home, because it now has to pay the price for discriminating against illegal immigrants, after having lost a $6m lawsuit brought against it. Analysis: United States of America Immigration Laws need serious overhaul, in the sense that none of the policies the government has implemented has worked. It might be better to simply open the borders and allow people to register then enter under the supervision of prospective employers who desperately need their services on the apple, orange, vegetable, chicken, sugar cane and other industries. This would reduce the growth in illegal coming into to the country seeking to be a part of the Amnesty program, whenever it will be granted. These registered prospective employers should be made responsible for their return to their home countries when the crop reaping seasons are over and should be fined for failure to abide by the agreement. Home land Securities should not have the responsibility to invade workplaces to arrest illegal workers, when they have more pressing work to find home grown and other types of terrorists. The government is wasting valuable resources maintaining the border walls, it should be closed and the money allocated to the development of the country’s educational system. Finally, the granting of amnesty enables the government to collect more taxes, which when combined with the savings from closing the border operations, could provide the funding for the technology, training, and human resource requirements needed to process the new system of entry by registration. 3. Week 3 Date: 02/27/11 Foreign Policy Article Title: Anglo-American-Israel Diplomacy: All the Presidents’ messengers Source: The Economist Date: 03/25/11 The British Prime Minister view on America major ally in the Middle East seems a mystery to many foreign policy expert and different from the USA as well, in light of a visit to the troubled region. Mr. Cameron was pushing the Israeli to give concessions to the Palestinian, while highlighting the difference between his country’s position and the Americans. The blockaded Gaza strip was classified as a prison camp, and Israel was denounced for boarding the flotilla bound for Gaza earlier in the year. The trend continued when Mr. Cameron went on a tour of the Gulf States, when he highlighted Britain’s vote for the United Nations Security Resolution condemning Israel settlement activity, which was in direct opposition to its major world partner who vetoed it. A group of Quarter students were bluntly told by Prime Minister Cameron, that on this issue, Britain disagreed with its American ally. However he showed a different side when told a British Jewish group, the Community Security Trust, that his belief in Israel was indestructible, and the country was within its right to search any vessel bringing cargo into the Gaza region Were David Cameron telling people what they want to hear, and in the process market Britain as a bridge across the transatlantic gulf? Diplomatically according to the Economist, it does not seem so, and it was a possibility he was offering Israel mixed blessings with the approval of the United States. This seems to be true from recent historical perspectives, in that President Obama prior to the vote was reported to have been encouraging Prime Minister Cameron and others, to take tough stands against Israel. The engineered action may be due to President Obama’s continued frustration with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attitude, and a way of softening him up, but this will never be confirmed by the Whitehouse, as they would have had to put out too many fires. Private European sources, the Economist reported, have told Israel that Britain’s behavior was choreographed with America, and the seeming hypocrisy is to send a message to Benjamin Netanyahu that his actions is blurring the boundaries between Israel and his friends. Analysis: America, despite what it has allowed Prime Cameron to do on its behalf, will not change its foreign policy with Israel. The use of diplomatic power is a powerful tool, but in this case the level of hypocrisy was very high. Britain’s seems to be showing it was independent of American Influence by voting differently, but perhaps they had known before hand of America’s intention to veto the United Nations Security Resolution condemning the Israel settlement activity, it vote would be of no significance in the end. United States also will also never change its policy towards Great Britain, regardless of what comes out in the print and electronic medias. President Obama confirms this when he simply told the same media that he and Mr. Cameron was in discussion regarding the issue. Israel however, by its settlement action was not helping the triangular relationships that existed between it, Great Britain and the United States, the continued supply of arms and other aid it has received, and the fact the it is not a producer of oil, which the US needs from the Arabian alliances, and therefore has to show public support for the Palestinian people to maintain that relationship. The aftermath calmness may be an indication that this was all a diplomatic exercise to ruffle some Israeli feathers. 4. Week no.4 Date: 04/06/11 Article Title: The Road to Tahrir Square How Egypt’s Revolt happened and what we do know? Author: Michael Rubin Source: Commentary Date: 03/11 The flight of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben, started when Mohammed Bouazzi, a street vendor set himself on fire to protest the corrupt practices of the government. It took America by surprise, and led to protests in Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraqi Kurdistan, and most importantly Egypt. Egypt was totally unprepared and America hold middle ground until it became unsustainable to support Hosni Mubarak, who like Zine El Abidine Ben, was an American ally who was also sympathetic to Israel. The demise of the leaders from both these countries gave hope for the entire Arab world that was under oppressive governments. They according to Rubin were saying if they can do it, so can we. Suddenly three decades of Egyptian support in the Middle East hang in the balance, and American can do nothing about it. Mubarak however, was neither an enemy, nor a friend to America historically, because he voted alongside the US as infrequently as Cuba, Burma, Vietnam, Somalia and Zimbabwe, and only befriended Israel after his surprise annihilation attack on them failed. Additionally, Mubarak efforts to help contain the Iran influence had more o do with his self interest rather than partnership with America. Yet America tolerated him, because the alternative was the terrorist tainted Muslim Brotherhood, the organization behind the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. The tide was turning for years yet America remain in supportive of Mubarak, in that the Muslim Brotherhood remain strong after three decades of the president’s oppressive rule, being able to garner blind support from not only secular Egyptian upset with the rule , but also from Western diplomats as well. George Bush resolve was tested, when Mubarak security forces arrested Ayman Nour; the Leader of the Ghad Party on trumped up forgery charges, but yielded and maintains support. Barak Obama corporate with the Egyptian leader until the last minute, being mindful that American adversaries and Egyptian populist will use nationalistic levers to rally support similar to what Khomeini did in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, where the broad based support of Iranians from all religious denominations were ignited against America ‘s unpopularity and support for the oppressive Shah. Analysis: America support for military dictatorship in the Middle East has been strong for years, yet in a few weeks it has to expose a foreign policy that is more about political domination and business interest, rather than about the improvement of the living standards of people in the region. Zine El Abidine, The Shah of Iran, and Hosni Mubarak had all oppressed their people while amassing billions in assets, yet the USA remain supportive of them until revolutions brought about their downfall. It seems cynical, that a country that pride itself as the greatest exponent of democracy was supportive of military dictatorship regimes that annually destroy thousands of lives across the Middle East, yet were the recipient of millions of dollars of aid, military funding and other forms of financial, technical, and developmental supports. America has lost its moral authority in light of what has transpired in the Middle East in recent months, to condemn countries like Burma, China, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and Sudan, who are at times guilty of the same atrocities committed by the regimes it has supported in the Middle East and elsewhere. The country should have had to be toeing the line, while the tides of the demonstration remain in the balance, but should have severed its ties years ago. Perhaps such foreign policy would have gain more friends than enemies, especially in the area of terrorism, where the hatred of the country’s political hypocrisy is no secret. It is hoped that several lessons have been learnt, and future decisions will reflect it, and future global unethical associations that tarnished the corporate image of the greatest democratic form of governance, be avoided. 5. Week 5 Date : 04/13/11 Article Title: All fired up over Coal Exports to Asia Author: Jim Efstathiou Source: Bloomberg Business Week The green Groups are challenging the West Coast plans to build an export terminal for shipping coal overseas to China, while the companies engaged in the exercise sees this strategy as a tremendous growth opportunity. The venture if it happens could boost coal sales by hundreds of millions of dollars This is the scenario in the context of US internal policy of shifting away from carbon-belching coal fired power plants. The decision to build the port on the West Coast is as result of the fact that coal demand for Asia has been rising the fastest, and in particular China, the largest buyer (8.5 billion tons to date) has a rising consumption that is not being matched by its production rate. Longview in Washington State is the proposed site due to its location near to Asian and European shipping routes , and can easily load approximately 5 million tons of coal per year, but environmentalist are seen this as threat to the pristine conditions by the hazards associated with the coal dust. The claim is also that the 5.7 million tons of coal (inclusive of 0.7 from Anchorage, Alaska) that will be burnt annually in other countries will produce 11 million tons of Carbon Dioxide and this is will equivalent to the emissions from 2 million US cars. However , according to Sussman; an Analyst with New York Brokerage firm Brean Murray and Carret, demands for coal on the US market is diminishing, an a boost in export sales is exactly what the industry needs. Current prices at$ 13.75 per ton would add $688m to the revenue of the country. Analysis : The environmentalist are protesting the proposed expansion in the export facility on the West Coast, but are not providing any viable alternate routes for the coal producers to take. The government policy to export the excess coal produced, and gradually switch to alternate energy, will take time to materialize, and in the meantime coal mining companies have to survive, especially in the face of reducing consumption demands nationally. Years to come, the deposits of coal may be of little economic value , when compared to the unit price of alternate energy, and fact that Canada, China , Brazil, The Netherlands, and South Korea are economically prosperous and are driving the demands, the US government is adopting the right strategy, as the export revenues will improve the country’s balance of payments. Despite the of concerns of the environmentalist, technology is improving to generate cleaner coal burning, the population in Washington, is very small compare to the Eastern and Western States , and the buying countries has the final responsibility to protect their environment using the best possible methodology available in energy production from coal burning.. The revenue earned from the exporting of coal to these countries will also help to boost the economy of the country going forward, especially in the rural coal dependent communities. Bibliography 1. Kimes, M. (2011). America’s Hottest Export: Weapons Fortune 02/28/11 pp.62-73 Print 2. McDonald, H. (2010). Say No To Immigration Reform Forbes 06/28/10 www.forbes.com/ pp.24-26 Print 3. The Economist, (2011). Anglo-American –Israeli Diplomacy All the presidents messengers p.64 Print 4. Rubin, M. (2010). The Road to Tahrir Square Commentary March 2011 pp.21- 26 Print 5. Efstathiou, Jim, (2011). All Fired Up Over Coal Exports To Asia Bloomberg Businessweek New York , NY pp.12-13 Read More