Do Britain and America allow their citizens democratic choice on foreign policy?

My answer is a fundamental NO and recent events make that very clear. Whoever is elected US President is pressurised into having a hawkish foreign policy by the deep state. My native Britain is effectively a US puppet in foreign policy terms and will gladly oblige, irrespective of the views of its own citizens.

The President's newly confrontational attitude to Putin, following his airstrike, has received a lot of praise from establishment figures; across the political field and the media and on both sides of the Atlantic. I am particularly referring here to 'mainstream' Conservatives (which includes a US Senator who said picking Trump as Republican nominee was 'like getting shot' and the UK Government), as well as mainstream liberals. Over here, Jeremy Corbyn is the only major politician to criticise the airstrike and he has been roundly attacked by the Atlantacist right of his own party and our media. Pundits and politicians who have spent months calling Trump a fascist and saying that he is a threat to US Democracy have now seemingly decided that he is more acceptable President because his choices are now within the 'mainstream' of US foreign policy objectives.

Now that is not to say that praise has been universal. Liberal critics will typically say that Trump is erratic and will still question his suitibility and judgement as commander-in-chief. These are quite reasonable points IMO but real significance lies in what they don't say. The strategy can be questioned on tactical grounds, as can the person doing it. What can't be questioned is what the objectives are and whether they are honorable.

The best way to achieve peace in Syria would be to negotiate a settlement with all groups bar ISIS and use diplomatic pressure to stop arm shipments from Iran and Saudi Arabia. That hasn't happened because the US and Russia are both more interested in their own power than they actually are about peace. The same goes for regional interests such as the aforementioned Saudis, Iran and Turkey etc. This is not what is presented. What is presented is that the US and her allies are the 'good guys' up against the 'bad guys'. Also because America's interests. Whatever that means.

There are lots of reasons why many Americans voted for Trump, some more honorable than others. However, part of his appeal was with his playing of the anti-establishment card and his claim to believe in a nationalist pacifism compared to Hillary Clinton. Under siege from agencies of the US deep state over his (perhaps true) links with Russia, Trump has won friends in the US establishment by doing what they wanted him to do. This is not democracy and I refuse to believe that American people (Trump's base or otherwise) actually want an escalation of things in Syria.

People who have read my posts will know that I am no fan of Trump or the right-wing nationalism which he represents. This though is about a different problem and a different facet of political power. The MIC, US intelligence agencies and the US bureaucracy have tremendous authority and it is almost completely unaccountable. The British State is of course much the same on a smaller scale. Elections can make a difference and can change some aspects of power but what goes on behind the throne deserves more attention.

Sorry that was so long. thanks for reading it all if you did.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F Best Comment

Sounds good. But a few paragraphs can't nearly encapsulate nor untangle the myriad of pros and cons to this, my own, or any other argument.

What I am afraid of, is this particular occupant of the White House, now under numerous investigations, will use foreign policy, bombing etc to move his own story off of the front banner of the news, and delegate it to the back pages. He seems to change his mind on a dime having come to power with a loose collection of proposals, ideas, platforms, and abject ignorance of how governing works and how to put his own White House in order. So much for his great business leadership.

Any new Prsident has problems, issues, etc, and has to face new realities once in power. One of the greatest of these is that their power resides perception....... in their successes or failings, in the confidence they inspire, and in the 'dreams' they can bring their people to aspire to.

Trump has demonstrated so far....and it is still new, so the jury is out, that he is a mean, small, petty man who has taken pains to obliterate everything his predecessor has stood for and put in place rather than to concentrate on building forward. He looks backward. He consequently own the distrust he has earned. He owns the investigations into his campaign, his dealings, his shady hiding of his taxes, etc.

He will let healthcare burn to the ground for millions of Americans rather than fix it, or commit to making changes to improve and fix it. And he will decimate health care and choice for women, playing to a minority but firm base of right wing Christians, rather than to what is good and safe and right for women.

He came to power having offended so many, with the support, the proven and overwhelming support of less educated, though rightly angry people who were peeved that their standard of living has not increased, and in fact decreased over the last successive decades.

Right, and Left need to start working for the Middle Class, and expand opportunities for the Middle Class. But time and again Trump takes his own marching orders from Fox, Breitbart, Alex Jones and a number of less than truthful sites, supported by an agenda that places the outcome decidedly in the camp of wealthy donors and corporations.

As to your question, of whether the people have democratic choice in foreign affairs..... that happens to some degree at the ballot box. But the road to the ballot box is pock marked, blown up, and misdirected long before anyone gets to vote, by literally hundreds of millions, a billion and more being shoved at people through advertising and campaigns ..... and those same voters have no capacity or resources to decipher which is valid, true, or worthy.

So no. Thereis no democracy for the people in foreign policy. That ended on voting day. And there wasn't much democracy there either.

Cierzo · M

This is a very complex post. I will try to answer it the best way my limited intelligence and knowledge of the English language allows me.

This situation dates back to the cold war, in my opinion. After WW2 Western Europe does not have a voice of its own in the chessboard of international relationships, but it is just a pawn (or a rook if you prefer) in the American side.

The same bipartisan scheme that dominates American politics, with two political parties disagreeing in certain issues, but agreeing in the most important ones (economics, foreign policy) took root in Europe. In most countries a false conservative/socialdemocrat dichotomy still rules. During the cold war communist parties were the ones who could put in danger this scheme of things. The US of course did not allow it to happen and nipped in the bad any chance of them reaching in power. I am sure you have heard about Operation Gladio.

The situation has not changed much. Neocons of both parties control American policy and the deep state. Here in Europe some have set there hopes in leftist parties or leaders like Tsipras, Corbyn, Iglesias on one side; or nationalists like Le Pen, Farage, Petry on the other side. So far more hopes than realities.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

I agree. The cold war is a good point and it was always more about international power accumulation than the fight against Communism. Even when the US was much further to the left on economic policy, both US parties were still hawkish. Nixon once tried to implement an Universal Basic Income. I would like Lyndon Johnson apart from his own role with Vietnam.

Don't be too down on yourself btw. Your command of English is excellent and I don't know any other language. Even though I strongly disagree with your solutions and the politicians you like, I respect your intelligence greatly.

SW-User

I read it all but I feel that I do not have the knowledge to know what to say in response. I just feel that impotent sorrow and rage, hopelessness and sense of horror at the evil being handed out to the civilians of Syria.

Diplomacy doesn't seem to be what powerful men want to do. They are happier playing their games and watching acid burning skins away.

CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F

Your opinions are valid, and have import.

Diplomacy only works when all sides are represented, and all sides want it, and work toward it. That said, there are usurpers of the process who do not want it. ISIS has no desire or designs on diplomacy. They want turmoil, terror, and discord. They thrive on it, and have zero investment in diplomacy succeeding.

So it's a perpetual state of terrorism juxtaposed against supposedly sincere interests in peace. Those representatives of said peace dropping bombs in order to 'achieve' it.

The insanity of it all is dwarfed by the killing of innocents, the images of its victims, the destruction of civilization.

Meanwhile the question goes unanswered.
Is this merely battling nations pointing guns at one another, while spilling someone else's blood, killing someone else's children, on someone else's soil?

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

In general I like the president's unpredictability end. It telegraphing his moves. I share your deep state control concern and hope the two limited bombing incidents are just that. Limited. I dint think any foreign policy anywhere has ever been democratically controlled as I think shout it. Perhaps Antarctica lol?

I plan to evaluate the president's actions on Thanksgiving by which time there should be some evidence as to how his choices have worked out.

I agree that ridding us all of the curse of the imbedded unelected government should be a priority.

CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F

I know you know this...but you are incredibly smart btw.

View 2 more replies »

CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F

@Burnley123: hahahahahaha nope. I could care less about that.
As for no one responding, most people want their news in Twitter sized snippets.

Several paragraphs just seem like too much work for some, regardless how well thought out.

Thus...... President Trump!
I rest my case.

He kept it stupid, and angry, and dumbed down.
And he won.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@CassandraFemale17: Thank you for your reply though Cassandra. It was really good and well thought out.

thatscottishguy · 26-30, M

@CassandraFemale17: Don't feed his ego.

Add a comment...