Govt 7: My views on foreign policy (v1.0)

Let me assure you I am no Henry Kissinger. But like everyone else, I have a viewpoint on foreign policy. 

 Foreign policy is a key focus of the US government. Both the legislature and the executive are heavily involved. The reasons are three folds. Firstly, trade and investments are key drivers of economic growth and also ties friendly countries together. A country wants rules based fair trade. Secondly in today's world, military alliances, and intelligence sharing are very important since no country can really pretend anymore that security is a task it can do by itself. Lastly the rule-based world order that has preserved world peace and promoted prosperity widely, is founded on multinational institutions, and inter-nation relationships. 

Today, countries avoid trying to invade other countries to get rich, and instead focus on economic might, and safety systems for themselves. The international repercussions of an invasion could be extremely severe and multifaceted to the attacker because conflicts challenge the rule-based world order and has dire consequences to the economy. The repercussions include economic sanctions, boycott of goods from the attacker, withholding of investments in the attacker, exit of multinational companies from the attacker, feeding of armaments, intelligence, training and military advise to the country attacked, and even the attacker being kicked out from conducting interbank transactions. The US also I believe is really cured of venturing into any new ideological or regime change wars. 

A country's foreign policy is driven by self-interest. Charity and compassion and morality should be directed to the citizens inside rather than projected outwards. It is hard realpolitik. However, in a democracy it is very rare to not have a significant moral overtone to foreign policy because the people in power need to be elected, and cruelty and immorality bring in far less votes. Also, these leaders likely believe in democratic principles, and would project those outwards too. Lastly a softer foreign policy encourages more countries to work with the democracy on economic or intelligence or military matters. In a way though this approach handicaps democracies relative to authoritarians in inter nation negotiations and deal making. 

Using this lens today, it is in America's self-interest, to be a member of NATO, and to help Ukraine to the greatest extent possible without getting into a shooting war with a nuclear armed foe. It is in America's self-interest to adhere to the rule-based world order and favor democracy (but it needs to get along with others too). It is in America's self-interest to adhere to international laws, rules and norms. It is in America's self-interest to be as friendly as India's self-interest will allow since it is a growing economic and military power and a democracy, but potential for sectarian strife is something to watch. It is in America's self-interest to have good relations with Canada/Mexico, the EU/UK and Australia/New Zealand, and Japan/South Korea. There may be possibilities with Philippines and Vietnam. There are a long-standing strong bond of Americans and Jewish people so the bond with Israel is enduring, and Israel is the only thriving democracy in the region. The relationship with Turkey is more complicated.  Combatting terrorism which is now spread out is also a factor guiding US foreign policy since memories of Sept 11 is still fresh. 

Using this same lens, the relevance of the middle east is primarily the oil, and its key role in influencing global oil prices. and the wealth generated from the oil. A conflict or destabilization there could have very bad consequences for the world economy. So, it is in Americas self-interest for the countries there to get along.  America though is self-sufficient in oil and gas. The current Palestinian leadership is a mess, but it is in Americas self-interest to preserve the two-state solution as a future option to avoid further destabilization, and for Saudi Arabia to normalize with Israel, and for the war in Yemen to stop. This vastly improves prospects of peace in the middle east. Another focus is to keep shipping lanes open from the likes of Houthi rebels and Somali pirates. The relevance of Iran is as a source of destabilization in the middle east and a source of attack. The relevance of Africa is the minerals/diamonds there and the potential of an epidemic like Ebola or HIV/AIDS starting there. The relevance of central and south America is the migrations occurring from there. The only relevance of North Korea/Russia is as a source of attack. 

China is a major military, technological and economic competitor to the US and a threat to India. But Chinas naked ambitions in the south China sea and Taiwan are big red flags for the US, as is its reluctance to toe the rule-based world order line and respect the intellectual properties of western companies. Lastly supply chains extending into China for critical goods may be in danger if the competition escalates into hostilities in the future. It is in America's self-interest to diversify its supply chains away from China. 

I look at foreign policy from the self-interest lens of the US and India, both of which I have strong connections to. I am interested in my heritage and history through birth to India, and I have good memories of my early life in India, and I have great Indian origin friends, and I have relatives in India, but today I am very much an American (there is no ambiguity). I wish India all the best and all success. 

There are other lenses that might be used in combination to craft foreign policy, but this lens is a key one.