Active or Isolationist Stand in the MENA Region
Question 1
The United States of America foreign policy is a policy that dictates the nature of the country’s relationship with different countries around the globe. Having a foreign policy is important because it aids in governing the diplomatic negotiations and relations between the United States and the countries it considers to be her allies. Having good diplomatic relations between countries is necessary to foster peace and avoid unneeded conflict with one of the states. In addition to this, having good relations between countries helps to increase trade activities in the region or between the countries as well as the movement between people and goods. The United States of America is recognized globally for its foreign policy, which allows the country to create good diplomatic relations with other countries from different continents and also countries that are developing and developed. One such foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) which involves the US relations with the northern regions of Africa and the Middle East. The US actions in the region have sparked differing opinions and views from different groups of people around the world. The question has arisen as to whether the US should continue with its activities in the MENA region or not.
Those in support of the idea that the US should continue its activities in the region believe that the foreign policy is helping the MENA region and view the US as a white knight. As such, taking an active role in implementing the foreign policy allows the country to spread the ideology of globalization. In addition to this, the country is allowed to help these countries solve some of the global issues they are facing by helping the region adopt the ideas of globalization. A report on Syria states that “the percentage of Syrians living in “extreme poverty” rose from 11.4 percent in 2004 to 12.3 percent in 2007” (Landis 2010 p.72). Syria, like most countries in the region, has had a long history of war, which has affected the economy of the country. Thus, most of the people in the Islamic nation are experiencing poverty. Juxtaposed to Syria is the nation of Israel, which has one of the best economies in the region. Like Syria, the country was faced long spells of war and conflict with her neighbors in the mid-1900s. However, through the US foreign policy in the MENA region, the country has been able to receive economic assistance from America. Mearsheimer and Walt note that the country is the greatest annual recipient of military and economic assistance from America, and this has improved it’s economically significantly (2007 p.4). Through the active role taken by the US in the region, the economic conditions of countries in the Middle East.
Additionally, taking an active role in implementing its foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa region has led to the long-awaited peace in the region, which has for many years has been characterized by war. People who hold the ideas of liberalism suggest the country to use force as a way to foster peace in the region (Miller 2010 p.40). Countries in North Africa and the Middle East have been ravaged by war, which has affected the ability of these countries to promote stable economic conditions for their citizens. While liberalism perpetuates that the American foreign policy use force as a way to protect her interest in the MENA region, constructivism holds that the policy is geared to helping America spread the ideals of peace in a region whose children and citizens are denied a chance to explore their growth due to war. Thus, Schmidt (2008) looks at a constructionist view of the foreign policy and opines that “United States global war on terror is in terms of the identity of America as the global guardian of liberty and freedom” (p.9). As such, the US is able to use its influence on the global security to promote and protect the founding ideologies of peace, liberty, and freedom to ensure peace is promoted in the MENA region. Most of the countries in the region have been able to enjoy long periods of peace since the inception and adoption of the US foreign policy in the MENA region. Taking an active role in promoting peace in the region has allowed children to go to schools and receive a quality education as they grow, and this has helped them affect positive change their societies in the future.
Furthermore, the American foreign policy in the region allows the country to explore its national interests in the region. The foreign policy in the region has been applauded as being strategic in helping America spread the ideologies of democracy and capitalism since the Cold War. Kramer suggests that America viewed Israel as a potential ally because it was considered “the most reliable and most cost-effective bulwark against Soviet penetration of the Middle East” (2019 p.6). Since the US did not want to lose the Cold War to the Russians, they had to seek for countries to ally within the region as a way to counter the spread of communism in the Middle East and North Africa. Thus, the American foreign policy allows the US to take an active role in spreading some of its ideologies in the region. Apart from spreading the country’s ideologies, an active role will allow America to explore the use of resources in the region, such as oil, to ensure the prices of the commodity is low for her citizens. Marc Lynch believes the country achieves this objective by denying other major players like Japan from protecting or threatening the flow of oil to the country (2016 p.135). The country taking an active role in the region will provide an opportunity for America to protect her natural interests, which will favor the country’s economy and political dominance globally.
Nonetheless, there are people in the world who view the idea of American foreign policy in the region as having a negative impact and that the country should explore the idea of isolationism. Those who support this idea opine that assisting the region to handle its social problems is an expensive affair, and it drains the country’s resources. Realists add that taking an active role in the MENA region has drawbacks that affect the country’s economy. The war with Iraq in the early 2000s affected the country’s economy since it was expensive and led to the allocation of more money into military activities. Brands writes that taking an active role in the Middle East by President Bush’s administration led to “punishing effects of the Great Recession and from military overstretch due to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars” (2016 p.105). Many people share the opinion that taking an isolationist stand and dropping the American foreign policy in MENA will allow the country to save billions of taxpayers money. The US government has spent a lump sum amount of money to ensure the region enjoys peace and democracy. An article by Posen states that, “In pursuit of this ambitious agenda, the United States has consistently spent hundreds of billions of dollars per year on its military,” which has surpassed the defense budgets of some of her allies” (p.117). Thus, the isolationists argue to recover this amount, and to ensure the money is channeled to other sectors of the economy like healthcare, the government should stop their involvement in the Middle East.
Moreover, this group believes that taking an isolationist stand towards the MENA region will help the country protect its territorial borders as well as keep their citizens and national interests protected from any form of terror attack. The isolationists argue that taking an active role in the Middle East region through the American foreign policy has exposed the country at risk to terror attacks since the country has directed its military actions to the Middle East. The deployment of soldiers in a foreign country has to a decrease in defense activities in the country. Apart from deploying military personnel, the spread of American ideologies in the region has also not been welcomed by some of the locals of the region. As such, they have faced acts of terror as the groups seek to oppose these ideals. Bronson writes that the US and Saudi Arabia had entered into a military collaboration “consisting of 28,000 combat troops and 15,000 air force troops” (p.58). This would divide the military personnel of the country, and this leads to a constraint in the country’s defense. The American forces have experienced rebellion from Islamic radicals such as Hizballah and Hamas, who occasionally resort to acts of terror both home and on foreign lands (Mamdani 2005, p. 25). An example of such an attack from radical rebel groups include the 9/11 attack in New York and the bombing of multiple US embassies around the world.
The American foreign policy in the MENA region is essential, and the US should take an active role in the region rather than an isolationist stand against the foreign policy. The foreign policy in the Middle East has improved the economic, social, and political landscape of the Middle East countries such as Israel. The foreign policy allows the US to spread the country’s ideologies of democracy, liberty, and freedom, and this has led to the improvement of the peace in most of the countries in the region. The region has had a long history of war and conflict. Through the deployment of military personnel in the region, America can protect her national interests in the region. However, many people believe that America should take a passive role in the MENA region because it leads to the increase in the terror attacks on the country since deploying military personnel in the area leaves the country vulnerable to external attacks. In addition to this, it is considered to be expensive to maintain military actions in foreign land. Nonetheless, this view is misguided because taking an active role in the MENA region ensures the US is getting ahead in the war against global terrorism.
References
Brands, H. (2016). Barack Obama and the dilemmas of American grand strategy. The Washington Quarterly, 39(4), 101-125.
Bronson, R. (2008). Thicker than oil: America’s uneasy partnership with Saudi Arabia. Oxford University Press.
Kramer, M. (2019). The American Interest. Azure, (26).
Landis, J. (2010). THE US-Syria relationship: a few questions. Middle East Policy, 17(3), 64.
Lynch, M. (2016). Belligerent minimalism: The trump administration and the Middle East. The Washington Quarterly, 39(4), 127-144.
Mamdani, M. (2005). Chapter Three: AFGHANISTAN: THE HIGH POINT IN THE COLD WAR Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the roots of terror. Harmony. Pp. 1-28.
Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2007). The Israel lobby and US foreign policy. Macmillan.
Miller, B. (2010). Explaining changes in US grand strategy: 9/11, the rise of offensive liberalism, and the war in Iraq. Security Studies, 19(1), 26-65.
Posen, B. R. (2013). Pull back: The case of a less activist foreign policy. Foreign Aff., 92, 116.
Schmidt, B. (2008). Theories of US foreign policy. US foreign policy, 7-23.