Elections 2012 in the USA - Essay Example

s: Details: Due Elections Both presidential candi s must give what they feel is right as per the foreign policy before they are elected. Foreign policy refers to the manner in which the US central government relates with other countries and international organisations, which maybe governmental or nongovernmental ones. The mode of conduct of this relationship is directly oriented towards having an influence on the central government. The whole system of the central government is impacted by the local societies that they govern. The opinion of the public in this sector is influenced by the perception of the foreign countries. Thus, there is a need to have policies that maintain the contacts between the locals and other governmental organisations in a favorable manner. The opposition can never be ignored since they may at some point be the controllers of the government in the future. This issue of the foreign policy has an impact on the forthcoming elections since the voters know what they want and they must be convinced that the issue of foreign policy is well taken care of. On the other hand, the foreign governmental systems not only maintain the relation with the central authorities but also with other nongovernmental systems in the United States (Hephaestus Books 160). At some point, they influence what is aired in the media and the public perception. Thus, what remains is that the policy is a government to government manner of relation. The classification of foreign policies falls under multilateral and bilateral. Bilateral refers to the relationship between two governing bodies while multilaterals involve many groups and countries. There have been policies set up as events emerge. All these are geared towards ensuring the well being of the US as far as the event and relations are concerned. Any politician who comes in place to vie for the presidential position, therefore, must tell the people of the US about his policies on the same before being considered as a potential candidate. The current events in the U.S. political arena are that the two strong candidates, the republican Mitt Romney and the sitting president who is a democrat, barrack Obama, have their personal views on the foreign policy setup. This highly influences the voter opinion and the pattern of voting that is to follow. Picking this from Romney’s side, he views Obama’s foreign policies to have let American leadership have an image of a “trophy” in most parts of the Middle East. Romney made an appearance suggesting that he may look much into signalling as a major address. This gave Obama an edge over him as he was viewed to have a better opinion on foreign policy. The president has made efforts to ensure that policies are in place to take care of the contentious issues. To begin with, the national security issue has risen to an appreciable level. America had been in war for a decade and the leadership needed restoration abroad. The al-Qaida leadership has been devastated and the war in Iraq is also ending, likewise in Afghanistan. As such, the national security policy has well been taken care of. International relation with the countries involved is under prospective damage control (Dong 106). The state has been empowered by the various tools that help it in the conducting of foreign policy. Among these, diplomacy comes first as the main way of communication geared towards building favourable relations. Foreign aid is another sector that ensures loyalty among countries that receive the aid. Foreign trade includes the import and export activities that stabilize the economy. A favorable balance of trade can only be achieved by proper international relation. This calls for a well set foreign policy on trade. Propaganda also plays a role in this sector and cannot be overlooked since the effects may be very severe. Intelligence operation and cultural exchange programs also play a role. In November 2012, the US will hold the presidential election. This has heightened a number of events and campaign strategies with foreign policy as one of the leading issue. The president is now ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as he tries to show some degree of toughness in the war against the al-Qaida. The opposition side accuses him of demonstrating levels of fecklessness on the two countries. However, this is more complicated than what the two are trying to put across (Wittes 104). During his campaign in 2009, the president already put up an activist perception concerning the destiny of his foreign policy. He would repair the outlook of the United States abroad. This was more directed to the Muslim world and ending war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, he would offer a helping hand to Iraq to put up better relationships with Russia in an attempt to withdraw efforts of making nuclear weapons, put China into favourable consideration on the regional and global issues on cooperation and ensure peace in the Middle East. All these signified a great change that was to come in his term. The main issues here included a just nation enabling a more peaceful and human, friendly world. Tension arose between the president’s rhetoric and quest for a fundamental change along one end and self-drive to govern in a pragmatically manner on the other end. The whole term through which he has been in office has been one of reconciling self-unsupported visions with the president’s innate realism together with politically driven caution. During his term, it has been clear that progress was only recorded where possible and pragmatism where it is called for. These steps taken by Obama in his administration and foreign policy have gone well with some of the US voters, but the critics have been fed with fodder by the same. Any point he compromises would be viewed as a weakness, thus an inability to deliver within a short term considered as an act of being incompetent. His approach on various issues has left people with questions as to whether he has plans or just responds to needs as they come. The competing powers engagement efforts at times fall victim to the traditional allies ignored in his considerations. As such, Romney’s supporters have found out issues on foreign policy to criticize him, although not so weightily (Parmar 3). Dating back to the Gulf War in 1990, the US was the leader of a multilateral coalition that was sanctioned by the UN Security Council against Iraq in search for Kuwait liberation. Since then, a search for the leader of al-Qaida had been on and in 1998, an inspection began and Saddam was perused. The president then decided that they would pursue the culprits with or without the support from any party. The US has made efforts to ensure that the multilateral collision compels Iraq to comply with. Thus, the bombing of Iraq by the US never followed with a ground attack. Al-Qaida attacked the US in 2001, prompting the renewal of the Iraqi regime war with full force. The main claim this time was that Saddam could be having weapons of mass destruction, which he could intentionally hand over to terrorists. This threat was the reason why the American government could not go without a reaction (Dong 80). Bush declared war on Saddam and started missile attacks. The motives of all humans are varied, so are the foreign policy intentions. Priorities also count in the order in which the policies come to place. This must always be considered by the political sides which are seeking the people’s votes. Any country will always set up foreign policies so as to protect its integrity and itself from external attacks. The international power balance must be kept under control so as to be able to maintain it well. Allies’ integrity and territorial protection are also ensured through foreign policy. The United Nations also help in this by fostering security internationally. The strategic resource accessibility must be well protected. All these considerations have to be made before one is deemed fit for the presidential elections. The incumbent president and the opposition must show what their priorities are once elected. The balance of power internationally must also be maintained through the foreign policy. This calls for a well set schema so as to ensure that powers are at the required level, putting the source of the economy in mind. This is done by expanding the United States’ businesses both locally and abroad. Thus, there should be modernisation of the operational facilities and expansion of the economy. This should not be limited to the US, but globally. The American nationals in foreign nations must also be well taken care of by the government as set in the foreign policy. Human right protection as a priority must be looked into by the government as expected by the voters. Failure to include this in the foreign policy for any of the candidates would mean that they are overlooking the most crucial interest – the safety of an American. All these policies are still classified as low politics and high politics. Which politics in this case involves the military while low policies look into the economic, social and cultural manner of relation among different countries? So, strategic and tactical objectives are called for. In this case, strategic goals mean those at the ultimate end of the set up policies while tactical ones refer to a yardstick to the strategic policies. The voters must look into the nitty-gritty of both these before making decisions on whom to vote for as their next president. Both candidates must include their short term and long term plans as far as the country’s policies on foreign issues are concerned (Parmar 253). In their manifesto, the need for understanding what the voters want included and eliminated is not inevitable. The candidates, therefore, must learn how to handle all the current and emerging issues on foreign policy and know how to come up with solutions. One of the foreign policies unveiled in the Obama administration is the recent US consulate attack that took place in Libya. This acted as unveiling loopholes in the Obama administration. His foreign policies were reflected to be more of surface vision rather than the deeper impact. The response towards the attack was too slow that it pointed our administrative weakness of the incumbent’s team. The republican side claimed that they were capable of making a government with foreign policies that would show America’s strength and not the government’s weakness. In this respect, Obama defends by claiming that Romney’s team are those that execute “shoot first aim later” criteria, which is not the best policy (Wittes 33). Violence in the Middle East has been associated with Obama’s foreign policy. Thousands have been killed in the Middle East region with Russia putting down America at each stage. The Iraq issue is the biggest of all according to the republican side as stated by Ryan. In addition, Ryan claims that the republican side will not let Iran go on with their nuclear weapon programs. He further adds that there will be no boundaries in issues to do with Israel’s security. From the above discussion, it is worth noting that the foreign policies are some of the weighty issues to define who is fit for the presidency. This has led to varied formulations concerning the same by the warring sides. The sitting president defined most of his policies of which he demonstrated for the past four years. Any additional policies are just but an extension of what he had put across during the campaigns for his first term in office. On the other hand, the republican side has widely differed with this policy terming it as a weakness of the government. This includes the issues in Libya’s attack, Iran making nuclear weapons, peace in Middle East, and Israel’s security among others. Works Cited Parmar, Inderjee. New Direction in the US Foreign Policy: Routledge Studies in US Foreign Policy. UK: Taylor and Francis, 2009. Print. Hephaestus Books. Articles on Foreign Policy of the Barack Obama Administration, Including: East Asian Foreign Policy of the Barack Obama Administration, South Asian Foreign Policy of the Barack Obama Administration. Texas: Hephaestus Books, 2001. Print. Dong, Tian-jia. Social Reach: A Connectivist Approach to American Identity and Global Governance. Maryland: University Press of America, 2008. Print. Wittes, Benjamin. Campaign 2012: Twelve Independent Ideas for Improving American Public Policy. Washingo, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2012. Print. Read More