Third US-Mexico Foreign Policy Blog 6/24- Border Fence??

So where have I been? Apparently we are building a fence on the border between the US and Mexico? I thought that idea got vetoed..I guess not. According to this article: “the multibillion-dollar fence project that stretches from the Pacific surf at Tijuana to the Gulf of Mexico near Brownsville, Texas” is proceeding at full force without any sign of slowing down. As of June 13th, 331 miles of fencing have already been built. You are probably wondering, that’s great Elizabeth but how does that relate to foreign policy? Well, it represents a perfect example of presidential reactivity without a comprehensive plan to back up the decision. We were just talking about this yesterday, how to be an effective president and make effective policies, you have to consider all information out there and examine the pros and cons before jumping into action, something both of the Bushs’ lack. This article claims that there are a lot of reasons to halt the construction of the security fencing, but that neither the president nor the supreme court care to listen why. This matter is highly debated and controversial but it poses a conflict between security and the environment. The fence is known to highly jeopardize the lives of already endangered species and also will impede on the lives of marine mammals. The thing that caught my eye is that in order to pass this legislation to begin the fencing project, “in 2005 Congress gave the administration wide-reaching power to waive environmental and other laws that could stand in the way”….since when can the government just bypass laws in order to proceed with new laws? Apparently this happens a lot, and even more in international law. Not good, I think we need a return to basics. The article is available here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91G1J80G&show_article=1 Let me know what you think.

Third Foreign Policy Blog 6/24- Environmental Policy

Just a note on yesterday’s class. First, the movie clips and such on Bush #41 matched up quite closely from what the reading said about him, how he is very reactive and responsive to situations that occur but that there is definitely a lack of strategic planning. Also, I would choose him over his son because it seems like the first Bush really did focus and sanctify the importance of personal relationships, he did make it a priority to meet face to face with state leaders and gave off more of a diplomatic vibe. I don’t see that too much with George W. I would have said this in class but after sitting there for 2.5 hours straight…its no longer that important.

Anyways, on a different note, I think the significance of environmental policy is going to be on the rise in foreign policy debates. In this article, the former UN secretary general urges that its polluter vs. non-polluter, and that the modertnized nations really are the ones to blame, not the lesser developed states. I find this to be interesting because it was the US’s key reason for not signing the Kyoto protocol that it should be all nation’s responsibility to protect the environment, not just the more industrialized states, so the US refused to sign it until every state was included in the accountability. Annan completely contradicts this and says that nations strickened with poverty aren’t doing the polluting and thus shouldn’t be further burdened. So who is right? Should every sovereign state share the same responsibility to combat “the Tragedy of the Commons” regardless of GDP, or should the states that are doing the majority of the polluting be responsible? I think I might have to side with Annan on this, but its definitely a tough situation. The article is here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080624114449.9wjckc1h&show_article=1 

Second Mexico-US Foreign Policy Blog 6/17/08

Something very exciting has happened within the Mexican Judicial System recently. The revelation is that Mexico has just adopted U.S. style public trials and are now implementing “innocent until proven guilty”. Although this sounds very promising, I’m not exactly convinced yet, Mexico’s history is filled with instances of corruption and lack of integrity in the government. So we’ll see how this plans out but I will admit it is a very good start. An optimistic quote from this article is: “This is perhaps the most important reform to the criminal system that Mexicans have had in a long time,” Calderon said after signing the amendment. Which is nice because it shows the president is acknowledging that reform is a necessity in the criminal system.  The changes supposedly have a deadline of implementation which is 2016 – quite far off in the distance. Nonetheless, its definitely a step in the right direction and shows that despite the differences in political ideology between Mexico and the U.S., Mexico still sees the U.S. as a role model in some aspects. The article is available here for more information: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1b3ovVjcz0RztEKCyuIA5rFS9AgD91C15HG0 . I’m excited to see where this will go, and if Mexico is really taking a turn for the better.

Second Foreign Policy Blog 6/17/08

In class on Monday we learned about the “sacrifice trap” which is when a politician or leader chooses a course of action in foreign policy but then if it turns out its failing, the leader fails to accept it and pushes on with the plan because he or she believes it is too late to stop what he is doing, that they’ve already made such a sacrifice where they wont stop till they feel the cause is justified, that their sacrifice was worth it. I see a lot of examples of this in recent news. One example is with Hillary Clinton, how she persisted on until the bitter end, how she kept in the race despite the fact that she had pretty much lost. Some may say its just determination but it also can be seen as exemplifying the sacrifice trap. Other more famous examples of this are Vietnam and as many might agree, Iraq. No one likes to admit their wrong or that they have been defeated, somehow the future of foreign policy actors have to reverse this trend or the ramifications could be extreme.

One promising event that just happened is the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas for the Gaza Strip which is scheduled to begin Thursday morning.  This article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin explains more about it.  As we discussed in class, NGO’s can be very effective in putting a halt to, or even preventing ethnic clashes such as this, and when these types of clashes do occur between different international actors and civilian lives are being compromised, NGO’s are even more effective in getting aid provided by other countries to the right people in the conflict-ridden area. I’m personally a fond supporter of NGOs as long as they stick to their objectives and don’t become irrational, Amnesty International I believe is a great example of an effective NGO.

First NCLC General Foreign Policy Post

So far I really do enjoy this class and the theory that goes behind foreign policy. Its something I think everyone can relate to, especially those of us who like to travel and then actually feel the repercussionsof international chaos. For homework the other night I read Fukyuama’s the End of History. Which I thought was kind of confusing since he jumps around a little and discusses different point of views on the US in the post-cold war world. But I do understand how it marked such a huge turning point in history, how the US went from being this defensive united actor all proclaiming a common enemy for the democratic societies in the world, to then having no one really to fear and having all that work and efforts of containment all really go down the drain and how it really changed society for awhile. But then again, the world is quite a different place now, with all sorts of ethnic conflicts sprouting up all over the place that could potentially harm the US so its very interesting to compare. I’m very intrigued with how the US is going to tackle Darfur if they do every decide to really go in there and do some damage control. I think it will all change with the new presidency.

First NCLC Mexico Relating Post- Mexico and Cuba

I found something really interesting today as I was brushing up on my knowledge of Mexico relations. I was always under the assumption that since the US was boycotting Cuba, Mexico was too, or at least that the US government would encourage Mexico to terminate relations with Cuba. This article I found presents quite the opposite. It says that the US in the late 1960s had talks with Mexico and recommend that they support Castro’s movement, verbatim it says that Mexico maintain an “informal understanding with the U.S. at highest levels to maintain relations with Cuba so one OAS country can have foot in the door which might be helpful”. The article can be found here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB83/press.htm .

Since the US outwardly opposed Cuba at this time, wouldn’t this agreement with Mexico kind of resemble espionage? Since the US was obviously using Mexico to gain information about Cuba? I just found this really interesting since normally if you end relations with a country, you want your international image to be that you refuse to work with that country. But going behind close doors and establishing agreements with other countries to do the exact opposite of what you are actually doing, seems a little hypocritical. However I know that stuff like this between nations goes on all the time and is also a method of statecraft, and looking out for the best interests of your country.

I chose Mexico as my country because I recently stayed there on a Study Abroad for 3 weeks, it was quite an experience seeing as how I have never been out of the country before, and I found some correlations to be very interesting between the US and Mexico, I also so a great deal of globalization, understandably so though since they are our neighbors. Its too bad that Mexico is kind of stuck in this quasi-oligarchic/democratic situation though where a lot of corruption is inevitable, I’m interested to see what changes will result between US and Mexico relations.